Post on 29-Jul-2020
Illinois State UniversityISU ReD: Research and eData
Theses and Dissertations
9-28-2014
Perceptions of Cooperating Teachers Concerningthe Student Teaching Field ExperienceDawn Marie PaulsonIllinois State University, dmpaulson@eiu.edu
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd
Part of the Higher Education Administration Commons, and the Higher Education and TeachingCommons
This Thesis and Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ISU ReD: Research and eData. It has been accepted for inclusion in Thesesand Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ISU ReD: Research and eData. For more information, please contact ISUReD@ilstu.edu.
Recommended CitationPaulson, Dawn Marie, "Perceptions of Cooperating Teachers Concerning the Student Teaching Field Experience" (2014). Theses andDissertations. Paper 259.
PERCEPTIONS OF COOPERATING TEACHERS CONCERNING THE
STUDENT TEACHING FIELD EXPERIENCE
Dawn Paulson
142 Pages December 2014
This study explored the views of cooperating teachers on (a) their work with
student teachers and university supervisors, and (b) ways to improve the student teaching
process. In a mixed-methods sequential explanatory study, 153 cooperating teachers
answered closed-and open-ended questions using an electronic survey; then a subset of
12 participated in follow-up interviews. All participants taught at rural or semi-rural
middle schools and high schools in Central Illinois; all had experience with student
teachers from a mid-sized institution in that area.
Major findings of the study included cooperating teachers’ lack of preparation for
the semester, cooperating teachers’ beliefs in a need for better selection of student
teachers, their desire for feedback, roles they feel they should play (role model, mentor,
judge, etc.), and their desire for power and respect. Recommendations include
suggestions for university policy regarding candidates, university supervisors, and
student teaching.
PERCEPTIONS OF COOPERATING TEACHERS CONCERNING
THE STUDENT TEACHING FIELD EXPERIENCE
DAWN PAULSON
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
School of Teaching and Learning
ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY
2014
PERCEPTIONS OF COOPERATING TEACHERS CONCERNING
THE STUDENT TEACHING FIELD EXPERIENCE
DAWN PAULSON
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Nancy Latham, Chair
Lydia Kyei-Blankson
Steve Mertens
Erin Mikulec
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As I come to the end of this incredible undertaking, I want to thank the many
people who provided me with guidance and direction, so that I could reach the final
destination of my journey. For me, earning a doctorate degree has been a humbling
experience as I could not have done this without the support of my family, committee,
colleagues, and friends.
I am blessed with a truly wonderful husband, David, who always says Yes to my
dreams and aspirations. His unconditional love has been the foundation of my success in
my many endeavors. He can always be found by my side supporting and helping me
along my way. I am also blessed with two loving sons and their beautiful families: Doug,
Amanda, Sidney and Simon and Dan, Kristi and Andi. They never criticized or
complained when I had to shorten a visit to devote time to my dissertation. To my sister,
Dana, thank you for listening to me and encouraging me on my long drives home from
Bloomington. My family is my inspiration and my rock.
My sincerest thanks to my committee: Dr. Nancy Latham, Chair, Dr. Lydia Kyei-
Blankson, Dr. Steve Mertens, and Dr. Erin Mikulec. Without their cooperation,
assistance, expertise, and patience, this dissertation would never have come to fruition.
I am indebted to all of you for taking the time out of your busy lives to provide me with
the necessary feedback for the improvement of my dissertation, and I am thankful for
your willingness to help me meet the university deadlines for graduation.
ii
Many colleagues and friends have inspired, mentored, and coached me throughout
my journey. I am especially grateful to Dr. Teresa Frekking, who, by answering my ques-
tion, “How did you get your doctorate?”, started me on this journey. She consistently
provided me with guidance and support throughout my doctoral studies. Her belief in me
kept me on the path to my doctorate. A heartfelt thanks of gratitude goes to my trusted
friend, colleague and coach, Dr. Audrey Edwards. Her wisdom and selflessness are amaz-
ing and, as my coach, she continually held my work to high expectations. Our meetings
included work, laughter, and chocolate. I am grateful to Dr. Joy Russell who allowed me
release time from teaching so I could devote more time to my dissertation. A journey is
always more fun with friends, and I took this journey with two friends I met at ISU: Dr.
Colleen Herald and Julie Nelson. It is my privilege to call these women my friends.
This study would not have been possible without the many cooperating teachers
who responded to my survey, and I would be remiss if I did not specifically thank the 12
cooperating teachers in my study who trusted me with their perspective of the student
teaching experience. I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to give cooperating
teachers everywhere a voice. To the many dedicated teachers who were part of my
education, I say thank you for encouraging me to continue learning.
I am thankful for loved ones who are no longer with us but who, when they were,
encouraged me to follow my dreams. In loving memory of my parents: Mike and Robbie
Witwicki, my sister, Diane Witwicki, my in-laws Virgil and Pat Paulson and my
grandmother Pauline Schmidt who instilled in me the love of reading for which I will be
eternally thankful.
D. M. P.
iii
CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i
CONTENTS ii
TABLES vi
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Purpose of the Study 3
Significance of the Study 4
Definitions of Terms 5
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study 6
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 7
The Impact of the Teacher Candidate/Cooperating
Teacher Relationship 8
The Roles of the Cooperating Teacher 10
The Cooperating Teacher’s Perspective on Evaluation 12
Teacher Candidates Preparation Level 12
Role Conflicts in Evaluation 13
Conflicting Expectations 13
Other Perspectives and Concerns 14
Preparation of Cooperating Teachers 15
University Supervisor’s Role in Preparing the
Cooperating Teacher 15
Types of Preparation Cooperating Teachers Received 16
Support for Cooperating Teachers 18
Better Communication 19
Feedback 19
iv
Benefits of Mentoring a Student Teacher 20
Summary 21
III. METHODOLOGY 23
Research Questions 24
Research Procedures 24
Research Setting and Participants 26
Ethical Issues 28
Data Collection Logistics 29
Data Collection Techniques 29
Data Analysis Procedures 31
Researcher Positionality 32
Trustworthiness 33
IV. FINDINGS 35
Phase One: Research Question One 35
Demographic Information 35
Preparation to Mentor Student Teachers 37
Phase One: Research Question Two 38
Help That Cooperating Teachers Value 39
Hindrances That Cooperating Teachers Face 41
Lack of pre-semester meeting with student teacher 41
Lack of planning time 42
Giving up control 42
Poor quality of student teacher dispositions 43
Lack of preparedness for teaching 44
Issues with the university supervisor 45
Phase One: Research Question Three 48
Phase One: Research Question Four 53
Clear Pre-semester Statement of University
Expectations and Guidelines 54
Better Communication from the University Supervisor 55
Collaboration of the Three Stakeholders as a Team 56
Supervision in the University Supervisor’s Subject Specialty 57
Phase Two: Interviews with Twelve Cooperating Teachers 57
v
Portraits of the Interviewees 58
Interview Responses 66
Cooperating teachers’ lack of preparation for the semester 66
Content of the training 67
Cooperating teachers’ desire for feedback 69
Need for better selection of student teachers 72
Roles cooperating teachers should play 74
Cooperating teachers’ desire for power and respect 79
Pass or fail. Who decides? 82
Interpretation Phase 85
Cooperating teachers’ lack of preparation for the semester 86
Cooperating teachers’ desire for feedback 87
Need for better selection of student teachers 87
Roles cooperating teachers should play 88
Cooperating teachers’ desire for power and respect 89
Limitations of the Study 91
V. SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS 93
Summary of Study and Findings 93
Discussion 97
Cooperating Teachers’ Lack of Preparation for the Semester 98
Unclear expectations 99
Desire for support from the university supervisor 100
Cooperating Teachers’ Desire for Feedback 101
Mentoring and Its Benefits for the Cooperating Teacher 102
Need for Better Selection of Student Teachers 103
Roles of the Cooperating Teacher 104
Cooperating Teachers’ Desire for Power and Respect 106
Power to veto a prospective student teacher 106
Power to veto a student teacher’s instructional idea 107
An equal voice in reassignment and evaluation 107
Recommendations for Practice 110
Recommendations for the University Supervisor 110
Better selection of cooperating teachers 110
Better selection of student teachers 111
vi
Preparation and training before the semester 111
Support from the university supervisor 112
Power to veto instructional idea 112
An equal voice in decisions 112
Opportunity to be part of the design process 113
Recommendation for the Teacher Education Programs 113
Recommendations for Future Research 115
Conclusion 117
REFERENCES 118
APPENDIX A: Survey 125
APPENDIX B: Interview Questions 129
APPENDIX C: Letters 131
APPENDIX D: Interview Protocol 134
APPENDIX E: Interviewees’ Suggestions for the Design of the Student
Teaching Program 136
vii
TABLES
Table Page
1. Cooperating Teachers (CTs) Demographic Information 36
2. Frequency Distribution for Cooperating Teachers’ Preparation to
Mentor Student Teachers 38
3. Cooperating Teachers’ Perceptions of Interactions with the
University Supervisor 40
4. Cooperating Teacher Comfort Level with Situations that Occur
During the Student Teaching Experience 49
5. Frequency Distribution About Who Should Make the Final
Determination Whether or Not a Student Teacher Passes 51
6. Desired Frequency of Contact with University Supervisor 53
7. Demographic Information About Interviewees 65
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
With the advent of No Child Left Behind (2001), public school teachers were
asked to meet increasingly high standards. For example, The National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Unit Standard One (2008) states:
Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals
know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge
and skills, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills, and professional
dispositions necessary to help all students to learn. Assessments indicate that
candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards. (p. 16)
This is just one of the six standards that teachers are expected to meet. In order to meet
these expectations, teacher education programs must offer instruction in the necessary
content knowledge, lesson planning, and a variety of teaching strategies. However, the
extremely important task of providing teacher candidates with an environment where
they can discover how to create meaningful learning experiences for students as well as
grow and develop as educators is left in the hands of the cooperating teacher during
clinical experiences.
According to Darling-Hammond and Berry (1999), it is imperative that teachers
are better prepared for a new age of teaching. In an ideal placement, teacher candidates
would be supported by a cooperating teacher who models, co-plans, gives feedback, and
provides frequent opportunities to practice and reflect while allowing the student teacher
to assume more and more responsibility (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). A
2
study by Briers and Edwards (2001) documented the importance of the relationship that
develops between the teacher candidate and the cooperating teacher. According to
teacher candidates, the clinical field experience, and the mentoring provided by
cooperating teachers are valuable components of teacher preparation programs (Chesley
& Jordan, 2012; Clarke, 2001).
According to Clarke (2001) and Kasperbauer and Roberts (2007), cooperating
teachers are often the most influential factor in the development of novice teachers, as
they have the most contact and communication; therefore, it is important to develop a
better understanding of cooperating teachers’ involvement in teacher education. Yet few
research studies have examined the work of the cooperating teacher. Clarke (2001)
states, “Given the central role that co-operating teachers play in the practicum setting, it
is curious that their work languishes as a research area” (p. 237). More research
examining the important work of the cooperating teacher is needed (Baum, Powers-
Costello, VanScoy, Miller, & James, 2011; Caruso, 1998; Dooley, Dangel, & Farran,
2011; Glickman & Bey, 1990; Knowles & Cole, 1995; Zeichner, 1992).
In particular, we need to study the perspective of cooperating teachers. They are
the backbone of the field experience, and yet we have limited information regarding their
perspective of the mentoring process. We need to hear more from cooperating teachers
about their perceptions of the relationships with the student teacher and the university
supervisor as well as what cooperating teachers would like from these relationships.
Statement of the Problem
As indicated above, cooperating teachers greatly influence teacher candidates.
Knowledgeable and well-supported teachers get their initial on-the-job training from
3
cooperating teachers. Feiman-Nemser and Parker’s 1993 comparison of two mentoring
programs validates the importance of the mentor-mentee relationship in conjunction with
the clinical field experience. Hence, part of any teacher development and improvement
plan must consider input from the cooperating teachers. Unfortunately, we have not
heard often enough the cooperating teachers’ perspective concerning the mentoring
process that they are continually asked to facilitate during their teaching career.
Throughout the research, it is the voice of the teacher candidate that is heard most
often. According to Brookhart and Fremman (1992); Kasperbauer and Roberts (2007);
and Koerner, Rust, and Baumgartner (2002), existing research tends to focus on the
characteristics of cooperating teachers or their relationships with teacher candidates
mainly from the perspective of the candidates. According to Koeppen and Davison-
Jenkins (2007), there is little current research concerning the perceptions of cooperating
teachers relating to the field experiences that they so often participate in throughout their
teaching careers. Are we missing an important piece of the puzzle when we do not take
time to examine the cooperating teacher’s perspective? It is time that we hear from the
cooperating teachers and allow them the opportunity to express their viewpoints about the
process of mentoring teacher candidates
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the current research was to glean a better understanding of the
cooperating teachers’ viewpoint in the development of the student teacher and provide
information about what the cooperating teacher feels needs to transpire to develop a
better learning environment for both the cooperating teacher and the student teacher. This
research explored the perceptions of the cooperating teacher during the student teaching
4
field experience. By examining the perceptions of the cooperating teacher during the
field experience and then sharing the information learned with all concerned in the
preparation of future teachers, we can greatly enhance the quality of our future educators.
This study examined the perspective of the cooperating teachers as they work with
student teachers during the clinical field experience in the hope of providing a more
effective mentoring process and better quality in the advancement of the teaching
profession.
The following research questions guided the study:
1. What are the cooperating teachers’ perceptions regarding the ways they are
prepared for the mentoring of student teachers?
2. According to cooperating teachers, what factors help or hinder them when
working with student teachers?
3. What roles do cooperating teachers prefer to play?
4. What type of preparation and support do cooperating teachers believe they
would benefit from in relation to their work with student teachers?
Significance of the Study
As supervisors working with cooperating teachers, it is important that we address
cooperating teachers’ concerns and needs. Without research, their voice would not be
heard. The needs of the cooperating teachers can easily be overlooked by the school
administration, which has a multitude of issues to tend to in the course of a day, as well
as the university personnel, who are in the position of first and foremost finding a school
placement for the teacher candidates in their charge. With these pressing demands, often
the priority is to meet the logistical and financial criteria of the placement instead of
giving consideration to the quality of the placement. However, failure to ask the
5
cooperating teachers about their perceptions of the field experience could lead to
unnecessary problems in finding quality placements for future teachers. The study
provides a significant contribution to the field of teacher education by providing a
foundation for continuing research on cooperating teacher experiences.
Definitions of Terms
The following definitions apply throughout this study. The first four definition
are taken from the book Supervising Student Teachers: The Professional Way published
in 2010 by Marvin Henry and Ann Weber and the final two definitions are taken from the
article Teacher to Mentor: Become a Successful Cooperating Teacher published by
Ingrid Johnson in 2011.
Student teaching refers to a full-time clinical field experience that takes place in
the public school system varying from one semester to a year in length. Upon
satisfactory completion, teacher candidates receive their teaching certification.
Teacher candidate refers to a student in an undergraduate education program at a
college or university who is preparing to teach (NCATE, 2008).
Cooperating teacher refers to a public school teacher who has been asked to assist
a teacher candidate in learning how to teach before the teacher candidate has earned a
teaching certificate.
University supervisor refers to an employee of the university who works with
both the teacher candidate and the cooperating teacher to oversee the field experience.
Mentor refers to a trusted counselor or guide.
Mentoring refers to coaching a person, both personally and professionally.
6
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study
Participation in this study was limited to cooperating teachers who mentor student
teachers from a mid-sized institution in central Illinois. The schools used for this study
were rural and semi-rural schools in the same area as the mid-sized institution. In
addition, the study was limited to cooperating teachers in middle schools and high
schools. All of the cooperating teachers had experiences working with student teachers
from the above-mentioned mid-sized university; however, some cooperating teachers had
experiences working with student teachers from other universities. Because the study
involved participants from only one region and only middle schools and high schools, it
has limited generalizability.
Furthermore, the study used a survey design involving both closed-ended and
open-ended questions. Survey research is limited in that it shows the perceptions of only
the person being surveyed and is not corroborated by perceptions obtained from others
(Creswell, 2008).
Finally, analyses of open-ended questions are subject to categorization bias on the
part of the researcher. In order to reduce such bias, these analyses were peer reviewed by
another faculty member. There also could be design flaws in the survey or a bias in
questions. In order to reduce these sources of bias, the investigator consulted specialists
in research design and survey construction.
7
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A review of the literature suggests that teacher preparation is extremely important
to the success of our future teachers, that student teaching plays a major role in this
preparation, and that the cooperating teacher is vital to the development of the
effectiveness of the teacher candidate. A study by Dooley, Dangel, and Farran (2011)
examined topics published in highly regarded journals of teacher education between
January 2006 and December 2009, and they concluded that given the current push to
integrate teacher education into a clinical model, research on issues related to supervision
of mentoring and cooperating teachers is needed. Koeppen and Davison-Jenkins (2007)
and Bacharach, Heck and Dahlberg (2010) point out that teacher education programs rely
heavily on cooperating teachers in preparing future generations of teachers, but there is a
significant gap in the literature concerning the views of cooperating teachers. This still
holds true in 2012. The present study performed an extensive search of past literature
using library databases such as ERIC with search terms such as perspective, teacher
candidate, cooperating teacher, university supervisor, and mentor and found over 50
articles written on the mentoring of student teachers from the perspective of the student
teacher and university supervisor. However, only a few articles represent the viewpoint
of the cooperating teacher on the topic of mentoring a student teacher.
8
As shown below, teacher candidates value the cooperating teacher but also report
several unresolved issues, such as conflict between the university and the cooperating
teacher, lack of independence, and fear of the cooperating teacher as evaluator.
Cooperating teachers’ perceptions shed light on some of these concerns as well as other
concerns such as lack of preparation and support for the role of mentor. However,
research reveals gaps in our knowledge of what cooperating teachers want and need.
The Impact of the Teacher Candidate/
Cooperating Teacher Relationship
Teacher preparation has been cited as the most important factor relevant to a
prospective teacher’s future success (Clarke, 2001; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Kasperbauer
& Roberts, 2007; and Sanders, Dowson, & Sinclair, 2005). Many teachers feel that the
most important component of teacher education is the student teaching experience
(Guyton & McIntyre, 1990, as cited in Bartell, 2005). Bartell (2005) and Feiman-
Nemser (2001) state that a good beginning field experience shapes teacher candidates’
practice in many positive ways and gives them clear insight into high quality teaching.
Anderson (2007), as well as Kasperbauer and Roberts (2007), found that student
teachers perceived their cooperating teachers to have a significant influence on their
development as a teacher. According to Chesley and Jordan (2012) and Clarke (2001),
many teacher candidates consider time spent in the field and the guidance they receive
from the cooperating teacher as the most important part of their clinical experience.
Baker and Milner (2006) point out the influence the mentor can have on the student
teacher: “My cooperating teacher was one of the most influential adults I’ve had in my
life” (p. 68). Student teachers consider the personal characteristics of the cooperating
9
teacher to be six times more important than supervisors or cooperating teachers believe
(Koerner, Rust, & Baumgartner, 2002). Basic expectations for cooperating teachers are
to nurture the growth of the beginning teacher, learn how to observe the student teacher
in the classroom, and develop a sense of trust (Duquette, 1994; Sherrill, 1999). Caires
and Almedida (2007) surveyed 224 student teachers in Portugal, and those who gave
positive comments about their cooperating teachers used terms such as thoughtful,
supportive, trustworthy, and open. The most valued features of the cooperating teachers
were their interaction with their teacher candidates, respect, and support. According to
Freking (2006), training of veteran teachers in the mentoring process is often lacking, yet
student teachers continually state they value the support and guidance they receive while
learning to teach. Sadler (2006) interviewed 13 student teachers to better understand how
they navigated the student teaching field experience and found that the student teachers
often felt overwhelmed and believed their education had not provided them with adequate
preparation. Some students described their relationship with the cooperating teacher as a
safety net. Phelps and Benson (2012) and Sayeski and Paulsen (2012) agree that
cooperating teachers act as a safety net for teacher candidates during the field experience.
In summary, teacher candidates value the cooperating teacher as a guide, mentor, and
safety net.
Not all teacher candidates, however, provided positive comments about their
cooperating teachers. Many candidates report a disconnect between the strategies that
teacher candidates have learned at the university and those modeled by the cooperating
teacher (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992; Smith, 2007). According to Sinclair, Munns, and
Woodward (2005), many cooperating teachers encourage their student teachers to
10
ignore what they were taught during their teacher education courses because their
"real learning" takes place during their student teaching practicum (p. 210). Another
possible problem occurs with the cooperating teacher’s use of modeling versus
encouraging development of the student teacher’s own style (Sayeski & Paulsen, 2012).
The Roles of the Cooperating Teacher
Traditionally, the cooperating teacher’s role has been to model good teaching. A
2010 study conducted by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
(AACTE) states that modeling, goal setting, observing teaching, organizing, and
practicing teaching strategies are the key components to learning to teach. Often an
ideal placement is considered one in which the cooperating teacher models, co-plans,
provides opportunities for practice and reflection, and provides feedback while the
student teacher assumes increasing responsibility (Darling-Hammond & Bransford,
2005; He & Levin, 2008; Henry & Weber 2010). Teacher candidates comment that
they pattern their behaviors after the model provided by their cooperating teacher
(Anderson, 2007; Caires & Almedida, 2007). According to Weasmer and Woods
(2003), it is essential for student teachers to have good models to imitate.
One possible problem with this patterning is that cooperating teachers have an
inordinate amount of influence on teacher candidates, and many candidates will teach as
their cooperating teacher does because that is all they know (Feiman-Nemser, 1996;
National Research Council, 2001; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). However, according to
Schulz (2005), teaching should not be a series of routines, habitual technical acts to be
learned, perfected, and repeated year after year. Rather, good teaching is a complex,
11
intellectual, creative, decision-making activity. Teachers should be thoughtful, reflective,
inquiring, self-directed, and active participants in decision-making. Schultz proposes
abandoning the traditional training model in which pre-service teachers demonstrate the
methods already learned and replacing this model with an educative practicum that helps
teacher candidates understand the teacher’s role, develop the capacity to learn from future
experiences, and accomplish the purpose of helping students learn. In addition, it has
been suggested that teacher candidates need more opportunities to explore, try out new
ideas, and make adjustments accordingly (Beck & Kosnik, 2000; Carroll, 2012; Ganesh
& Matteson, 2010; Welsh & Devlin, 2006). Fantozzi (2012) suggests that modeling best
practices for student teachers gives them methods to use in their classroom but it doesn’t
create future teachers who can evaluate practice based on their understanding of how
students learn. Watching what teachers do is not sufficient for learning why they do it
(Danielson, (2007).
Gardiner (2009) interviewed and observed eight cooperating teachers and found
that cooperating teachers play two distinct roles: teacher and mentor. From this study it
was concluded that the mentoring development provided to the cooperating teachers was
insufficient. Cooperating teachers need more support during the transition from
classroom teacher to mentor teacher.
According to Beck and Kosnik (2000), many teacher candidates report a high
degree of tension in relating to their cooperating teachers because they are concerned
about their final evaluation. Anderson (2007) agrees, stating that cooperating teachers
must assess and provide final evaluations of student teachers before they can receive their
teaching certificate. The written evaluation at the end of the practicum can “make or
12
break a career” (p. 2). In a study of 35 teacher candidates, Kuechle, Holzhauer, Lin,
Brulle, and Morrison (2010) also noted that many candidates expressed anxiety about
their evaluations. Likewise, interviews of several teacher candidates by Fantozzi (2012)
reveal that the most important thing was a good evaluation and this often caused anxiety.
Smith (2007) agrees, stating that student teachers fear advocating for ideas that differ
from their cooperating teachers’ ideas, so they keep their frustrations and opinions to
themselves. Due to the concerns associated with high-stakes evaluation for the purpose
of licensing, Feiman-Nemser (2001) suggests that the evaluation process should be
considered as an administrative function.
To summarize the research, student teachers are uncomfortable because the
cooperating teacher’s strategies do not connect with the university’s teaching, because the
cooperating teacher fails to develop independent thinking in their mentees, and because
the same teacher who mentors them will eventually judge them. It is important to
examine the cooperating teacher’s view of these possible conflicts.
The Cooperating Teacher’s Perspective on Evaluation
Cooperating teachers expressed several concerns about evaluation of student
teachers. They were concerned that student teachers were inadequately prepared and
selected. Cooperating teachers also pointed out conflicts between the roles of judge and
coach as well as conflicts between cooperating teachers’ expectations and those of the
university supervisor.
Teacher Candidates Preparation Level
A major concern of cooperating teachers is the lack of preparation of teacher
candidates prior to the student teaching experience. According to Chesley and Jordan
13
(2012), university teacher education programs have not provided student teachers with
adequate preparation in content pedagogy or research-based strategies. This lack of
preparation often leads to cooperating teachers spending an inordinate amount of time
instructing the student teacher in the necessary content knowledge for teaching.
Role Conflicts in Evaluation
Responsibility for the evaluation of the teacher candidate can also be a point of
confusion. Sinclair, Dowson, and Thistleton-Martin (2006) suggest that cooperating
teachers want the university supervisor to evaluate the teacher candidate, at least when
the candidate is failing. Sinclair et al. found that cooperating teachers often worried
about their assessment of the teacher candidates, and they were especially anxious if they
had to assess a weak teacher candidate and face the possibility of assigning an
unsatisfactory grade. The cooperating teachers shared that they felt relief when the
university supervisor took charge when the teacher candidate was incapable of a
completing a successful practicum experience. When student teachers struggle, the
consensus was that cooperating teachers needed assistance in evaluation and providing
feedback in the more difficult situations.
Conflicting Expectations
In addition to role conflict, another possible reason for cooperating teacher
discomfort with the role of evaluator is a lack of agreement between the cooperating
teacher and the supervisor concerning expectations for the teacher candidates (Hastings,
2004). Cooperating teachers complain that often if they fail a teacher candidate, the
university supervisor sends the teacher candidate to another cooperating teacher so the
candidate will pass. This creates negative feelings toward the supervisor.
14
A study by Beck and Kosnik (2000) of 20 cooperating teachers revealed
considerable confusion about expectations. Beck and Kosnik state that the lack of clarity
and agreement regarding the role of cooperating teachers is a “pressing practical
problem” (p. 209). Researchers agree that cooperating teachers are unclear about what
needs to be taught (Anderson, 2007; Baum, Powers-Costello, VanScoy, Miller, & James,
2011; Sandholtz & Wasserman, 2001). Sanders, Dowson, and Sinclair (2005) report a
cooperating teacher statement: “To be honest, I don’t know what I should be observing”
(p. 727). Hastings (2004) quotes another cooperating teacher as saying, “Help! I just—
I’m not sure I’m doing the right thing. What have I done wrong? Have I not been giving
her enough feedback?” (p. 139).
Other Perspectives and Concerns
According to Sandholtz and Wasserman (2001), other possible problems that
cooperating teachers face besides working with weak student teachers and uncertainty
about university expectations were re-teaching their own students that the student teacher
taught, criticisms from the student teacher, and personality conflicts. Hamilton (2010)
stated that the cooperating teacher’s first obligation is to the academic growth of their
own students. Goodfellow (2000) added that when student teachers lack initiative or fail
to take responsibility for students’ learning, cooperating teachers feel frustrated and
tension develops between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher. As LaBoskey
and Richert (2002) note compatible placements are more conducive to professional
growth and development.
15
Preparation of Cooperating Teachers
One way to reach agreement on expectations is for the supervisor to act as a
liaison between the university and the cooperating teacher, providing much needed
preparation.
University Supervisor’s Role in Preparing the Cooperating Teacher
According to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE, 2001), it is important that universities prepare cooperating teachers because
they must guide teacher candidates through the complexities of teaching. Baum, Powers-
Costello, VanScoy, Miller, and James (2011) state, “The university supervisor contributes
significantly to the teacher education program. Although they play a vital role,
supervisors have often been neglected by the programs they serve and by the research on
teacher education” (p. 38). Gardiner (2009) and Koerner (1992) suggested that
cooperating teachers are often not prepared to mentor teacher candidates.
There is a need for universities to examine what roles university educators can
play in the preparation of cooperating teachers for this task. Preparation may include
academic coursework as well as preparation specifically related to mentoring teacher
candidates. It is important to determine how well prepared cooperating teachers feel to
meet their mentoring responsibilities. It may be time for teacher education programs to
be more selective in their choice of cooperating teachers (Landt, 2014). As several
researchers, (Bacharach, Heck & Dahlberg, 2012; Sawchuk, 2012) noted cooperating
teachers are often assigned by a school’s principal or volunteer to serve as a teacher
mentor. The traditional model of student teaching has not changed systematically since
the 1920s (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). There is a wide variability in the experience and
16
the capability of the cooperating teachers. In Killian and Wilkins’ 2009 research study of
13 cooperating teacher’ student teacher pairs, they found that experience does not make
the cooperating teacher highly effective but inexperience is associated with less effective
cooperating teachers. Danielson (2007) noted that expertise is not the same thing as
experience. Not all experienced teachers are experts; however, experience is needed for
the acquisition of expertise. The development of expertise requires conscious effort by
teachers.
Types of Preparation Cooperating Teachers Received
In terms of academic preparation, Clarke (2001) found that cooperating teachers
were almost twice as likely to hold a master’s degree compared to non-supervising
teachers while Killian and Wilkins (2009) found that out of the 13 cooperating teachers in
their study all had completed a master’s degree. The revelation that cooperating teachers
are more likely than other teachers to hold a master’s degree indicates a commitment to
professional and intellectual development, a desirable quality for teachers working with
pre-service teachers. It is not clear whether such academic preparation affects the
cooperating teacher’s desire for workshops or other preparation that is specifically related
to the field experience.
In a 2001 survey, 47% of respondents reported participating in formal preparation
for their roles as mentors, while 14% indicated they had received no professional
development to help them mentor student teachers (Clarke, 2001). These numbers may
seem low, but Clarke indicates that experienced cooperating teachers did not see the need
for formal coursework in preparation for their role. However, for many cooperating
teachers, coursework or some type of preparation is considered valuable. According to
17
Horton and Harvey (1979), Koster, Korthagen and Wubbels (1998), and Kent (2001),
university supervisors should provide in-service meetings for cooperating teachers to
educate them about the mentoring process. By working with the cooperating teacher, the
supervisor is preparing the classroom teacher to become a member of the teacher
education team. Hastings (2004) and Smith (2007) indicate that such workshops prepare
cooperating teachers to facilitate planning, explore practices different from their own,
engage in discussions that explore teaching ideas, explore questions and uncertainties
about teaching, and assist novice teachers. Shroyer, Yahnke, Bennett, and Dunn (2007)
indicated that professional development is also important in improving the cooperating
teacher–teacher candidate relationship.
Schultz (2005) suggests that university supervisors move from the role of trainer
to that of mentor and work collaboratively with cooperating teachers. The university
needs to more actively bridge the university/school divide, engaging in continuous
conversations with the cooperating teachers in a joint effort to prepare new teachers.
Feiman-Nemser (2001) observed that supervisors need to work closely with cooperating
teachers and student teachers, and when they do not, there is no sharing of expertise.
Horton and Harvey (1979), Post (2007), and Smith (2007) also believe that university
supervisors can assist cooperating teachers in the various approaches to planning and
teaching. However, it is vital to acknowledge the importance of the university supervisor
in this complex triad. When cooperating teachers were asked who had a major influence
on their supervisory practices with the student teacher they stated that it was the
university supervisor (Killian & Wilkins, 2009).
18
According to Bennett (2002), cooperating teachers want to be included in the
preparation and planning of the student teaching program. Sandholtz and Wasserman
(2001) also found that cooperating teachers would like to participate in the design of the
student teaching program as well as collaborate on the creation of the familiar student
teaching handbook.
To summarize, many cooperating teachers hold a master’s degree, but fewer than
half report participating in any formal training for their role of mentors to teacher
candidates. Research does not indicate how much and what type of preparation the
cooperating teachers want. The answer to this question may vary according to the
teacher’s prior preparation and experience.
Support for Cooperating Teachers
According to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE, 2001) it is important that universities not only prepare cooperating teachers but
also support them during the field experience. Although research lacks detail about what
cooperating teachers want in terms of preparation, cooperating teachers have stated that
they want ongoing support from the university supervisor (Beck & Kosnik, 2000;
Gardiner, 2009; Sadler, 2006). “Providing supportive, enriched, and flexible settings in
which people can learn from one another is essential” (Darling-Hammond & Bransford,
2005, p. 33). Cooperating teachers need to be supported so they are more able to handle
the emotional aspects of the role of cooperating teacher (Grove, Strudler, & Odell, 2004;
Hastings, 2004). Likewise, in order to provide consistent support, university supervisors
need to be aware of cooperating teachers’ beliefs (Grove, Strudler, & Odell, 2004; He &
Levin, 2008).
19
Better Communication
Clarke (2001) states that cooperating teachers value periodic meetings during the
field experience. He further suggests increasing the frequency and duration of school
visits by university supervisors, holding more in-services, and communicating systemati-
cally with the cooperating teachers; all of these supportive interactions are essential to the
development of an effective clinical experience. Koerner, Rust and Baumgartner (2002)
indicate that cooperating teachers value supervisors as their link to the university as well
as a mentor. Schools and universities need to recognize that both parties are responsible
for improving teacher preparation and this can be achieved through collaborative partner-
ships (McFadden & Sheerer, 2006). Not surprisingly, Clarke (2001) found that 70% of
the cooperating teachers interviewed indicated they had on-site meetings with a super-
visor. Such meetings are often administrative in nature and take very little time, but they
can provide cooperating teachers information about supervision of teacher candidates.
Feedback
Another type of support that cooperating teachers find useful is feedback (Clarke,
2001). When asked about receiving feedback concerning their practice as a cooperating
teacher, 85% desired feedback. When questioned about how they should receive
feedback, 26% requested a survey response from their student teachers, 21% asked for a
post-practicum meeting with the student teacher, cooperating teacher, and university
supervisor, and 18% requested a meeting between the cooperating teacher and the
university supervisor.
The type and amount of support cooperating teachers want from the supervisor
may depend on the cooperating teacher’s prior preparation and experience (Baum,
20
Powers-Costello, VanScoy, Miller, & James, 2011). Supervisors found it difficult to
address all the cooperating teachers’ needs and interests due to their various experiences
working with student teachers. Kent (2001) suggests that new cooperating teachers in
particular would benefit from receiving support about the supervision process from an
experienced mentor. To date, little research has analyzed separately the wishes of
different groups of cooperating teachers. More such research is needed to analyze these
groups separately.
In summary, cooperating teachers value support from the university supervisors,
specifically frequent visits, in-service, better communication, and feedback. However,
cooperating teachers’ needs may vary according to their academic preparation and
experience.
Benefits of Mentoring a Student Teacher
Few cooperating teachers receive monetary reimbursement or even release time
for the mentoring of a student teacher, and yet cooperating teachers often remark that
they find the mentoring process beneficial to them. Landt’s 2004 research of 18
cooperating teachers supported the idea that educators can grow professionally while
fulfilling the role of cooperating teacher. While cooperating teachers model good
teaching, they often reflect on the teaching decisions they make throughout the course of
a day. Clarifying one’s own teaching to a student teacher prompts improvement.
Increased reflection, increased time to plan, and being valued as a mentor provide the
cooperating teachers with feelings of self-efficacy (Brink, Grisham, Laguardia, Granby,
& Peck, 2001). Benefits noted by Sandholtz and Wasserman (2001) were improvement of
one’s own teaching and the learning of new ideas. Cooperating teachers also reported
21
they were better organized and more aware of their own practice (Hamilton, 2010).
Grove, Odell and Strudler (2004) define this mutually beneficial sharing of knowledge as
“reciprocal mentoring” (p. 90).
Summary
Teacher candidates value the cooperating teacher as guide, mentor, and safety net.
However, many teacher candidates report tension due to discomfort with trying out
strategies that are different from the cooperating teacher’s, lack of freedom to do
independent thinking, and fear of the cooperating teacher’s evaluation. Some
cooperating teachers themselves feel discomfort with the role of judge; some complain of
lack of agreement about expectations; some complain of unclear expectations. Research
does not show how widespread these concerns are or what changes the cooperating
teachers would like to see.
In terms of preparation, many cooperating teachers hold a master’s degree, but
fewer than half report participating in any formal training for their role as mentor to
teacher candidates. How much preparation cooperating teachers want may well depend
on their background. However, in indicating how much and what type of preparation
cooperating teachers want, research does not differentiate among subgroups. Cooperating
teachers value support from the university supervisor, specifically frequent visits,
systematic communication, and feedback. Hamilton (2010) noted that the perception of
cooperating teachers is that the university supervisor is there to assist and evaluate the
student teacher and the cooperating teachers believe they have limited options.
According to Post (2007), the task to help cooperating teachers mentor more
effectively falls on the shoulders of the university supervisors. Here again, cooperating
22
teachers’ needs may vary according to their prior preparation and experience. Even
though cooperating teachers experienced frustration with the many problems associated
with mentoring a student teacher, Sandholtz and Wasserman (2001) found the
collaboration mutually benefitting.
Clarke (2001) and Cole (2000) find it interesting that despite all the work and
responsibility placed on cooperating teachers, research is incomplete concerning their
role in the mentoring of teacher candidates. Hastings (2004) states that “the noticeable
silence in the literature is indicative of the fact that administrators and researchers have
not truly recognized the contribution of cooperating teachers to the pre-service
experience or the emotional demands it makes on them” (p. 146). It is essential that we
hear more from the cooperating teachers themselves and their perceptions of the teacher
education programs and roles they play in the collaborative process (Bennett, 2002).
23
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to investigate cooperating teachers’ perceptions
regarding mentoring teacher candidates, including the support and training they received
and still need while mentoring teacher candidates during their clinical field experience.
In order to achieve this purpose, social constructivism was used as a theoretical lens to
guide data collection and analysis. Tracey and Morrow (2006) attribute the philosophical
theory of social constructivism to Vygotsky (1978). Social constructivism assumes that
society and any cultural organization tends to socialize its members and construct
knowledge. According to Kegan (1982, 1994), “humans engage in everyday world
making; that is, we individually construct meaning about the world through our
understanding of the events and relationships that make up our everyday lives” (as cited
in Fantozzi, 2012, p. 147).
A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design was applied in order to achieve
the study’s purpose as detailed above. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I
involved the use of a survey design. In this phase, cooperating teachers were asked about
their perspectives of the student teaching experience using a survey comprised of both
closed-ended and open-ended items. The analysis of the survey data generated themes
that were explored more deeply during Phase II of the study. In Phase II, cooperating
teachers were interviewed. The objective of the interviews was to probe cooperative
teacher perspectives further in order to generate more in-depth responses regarding their
24
perceptions regarding the clinical field experience. In this chapter, descriptions of the
data collection and analysis procedures used in the study are presented.
Research Questions
This study addressed four questions.
1. What are the cooperating teachers’ perceptions regarding the ways they are
prepared for the mentoring of student teachers?
2. According to cooperating teachers, what factors help or hinder them when
working with student teachers?
3. What roles do cooperating teachers prefer to play?
4. What type of preparation and support do cooperating teachers believe they
would benefit from in relation to their work with student teachers?
Research Procedures
In order to address the four research questions, a mixed-methods sequential
explanatory design was used for data collection and analysis. Tashakkori and Teddlie
(1998) emphasized the use of the sequential model for novice researchers wishing to use
both approaches but not wanting to get into the difficulties of using the approaches
simultaneously. The authors state that in the Quan/Qual sequence the investigator starts
with the quantitative study and then proceeds to the qualitative study. More specifically,
Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) describe a sequential mixed-methods design as a study
in which the researcher first conducts the quantitative phase of the study and collects and
analyzes the quantitative data, then follows it up with a qualitative phase which builds on
the first phase, quantitative. In other words, the study is conducted in two separate
phases using quantitative and qualitative research strategies.
25
It is important to note that Creswell (2009) advocates mixed-method research as
“more than simply collecting and analyzing both kinds of data; it also involves the use of
both approaches in tandem so that the overall strength of the study is greater than either
the quantitative or qualitative research” (p. 4).
In the current study, a cross-sectional survey design was used in Phase I.
According to Wiersma (2000), “Surveys are used to measure attitudes, opinions, or
achievement—any number of variables in natural settings” (p. 157). Creswell (2008)
lists the two basic types of research surveys: cross-sectional and longitudinal. Creswell
states that cross-sectional surveys are used to collect data about current attitudes,
opinions, or beliefs. They are excellent to use to evaluate a program or identify the needs
of the survey participants. The cross-sectional survey used in this study was administered
online and was comprised of two portions: a quantitative portion with 21 closed-ended
questions and a qualitative portion with two open-ended questions. (For the survey
questions, see Appendix A.)
Phase II of the study consisted of the use of a phenomenological approach.
According to Merriam (1998) and Patton (2002), a phenomenological approach focuses
on exploring how human beings make sense of their experience. This requires methodi-
cally, carefully, and thoroughly capturing and describing how people experience some
phenomenon, how they describe it, feel about it, judge it, remember it, make sense of it,
and talk about it with others. According to Merriam (1998), understanding the concerns
from the participants’ perspective and not the researcher’s is sometimes referred to as the
emic or insider’s perspective and is part of the qualitative approach to research. A semi-
structured interview protocol was employed to further explore cooperating teacher
26
perceptions of the clinical field experience. Responses to the survey items as well as the
number of student teachers they had mentored were used as criteria to select cooperating
teachers for the interviews. (For a list of the interview questions, see Appendix B.)
According to Creswell and Plano Clark (2011), an important consideration in the
procedures of a mixed methods design is the level of interaction between the quantitative
and the qualitative strands. In this explanatory sequential mixed-methods study, the
strands were implemented in two distinct phases. In Phase I of the study, the survey
quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed, and then in Phase II the
qualitative data, the interviews, were collected and analyzed. When the implementation
and analysis occurs in this sequence it is called sequential timing.
Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) explain that there are two variants of the
explanatory design: the more common approach, the prototypical, where the priority is on
Phase I or the less common approach, the participant-selection variant, where the priority
is placed on Phase II. This explanatory sequential study utilized the less common
approach, the participant-selection variant. The initial quantitative survey data was used
to identify and purposefully select the best participants to interview.
A challenge to using the explanatory sequential design is that it takes a great deal
of time to implement the two phases (Creswell &Plano-Clark, 2011). The present study
from beginning to end took approximately 2 years. The survey and interview questions
used for this study were piloted before being put into operation.
Research Setting and Participants
The cooperating teachers who participated in this study typically mentor student
teachers enrolled at a Midwestern university that has a large teacher education program.
27
In addition to placing elementary and special education majors, the program places about
300 student teachers per year for middle school and high school teaching positions.
University supervisors choose cooperating teachers according to the following criteria:
location of the cooperating teachers’ school district in a geographical area that does not
compete with that of another university, willingness to serve, a specialty that matches the
teacher candidate’s, and if possible a master’s degree. The same criteria were applied for
selecting participants for this study, as the researcher involved happens to teach at the
said Midwestern university and has a close relationship with teachers in many area school
districts.
The cooperating teachers who participated in this study were employed at small-
to medium-sized rural and small-town middle/high schools. School enrollment sizes
range from 74 to 1,564 students with a mean of 482.84. A convenience sample of
approximately 394 cooperating teachers were selected from the many cooperating
teachers in East Central Illinois who the past five years had been mentoring the
university’s student teachers who were preparing to teach in grades 6-12. Convenience
sampling involves selecting participants on the basis of their proximity, ease of access,
and willingness to participate (Urdan, 2005). Of these 394 teachers, 38 had retired or
otherwise could not be reached. Of the remaining 356, a total of 153 (43%) agreed to
participate in the study. According to Nulty (2008), this would be an acceptable response
rate as the overall response rate for online surveys is approximately 30%.
Phase II of the study consisted of interviews of 12 cooperating teachers. Rubin
and Rubin (1995) state that qualitative interviews are a tool of research, an important
method used to discover more about people’s feelings, thoughts, and experiences. Of the
28
153 respondents who took the survey, 52 respondents indicated that they were willing to
be interviewed. From these available respondents, 12 cooperating teachers were chosen
for interviews. Eleven interviewees were chosen because their responses to the open-
ended survey questions addressed one or more major themes found in current literature
and in Phase 1 of this study. These themes included preparation of student teachers;
training of cooperating teachers; support for cooperating teachers; communication among
the university supervisor, the cooperating teacher, and the student teacher; control by the
cooperating teacher; and supervision by the university supervisor. The twelfth
interviewee was chosen as an outlier because of his somewhat controversial views of the
student teaching program.
Ethical Issues
Once participants were identified, the researcher gave them a recruitment letter
(see Appendix C) informing them of the purpose of the study, asking them to complete a
survey, and advising them that they could skip over any of the questions or choose not to
participate. Participants were also assured that any information they provided during this
study would be used only for the purpose of improving the teacher candidate mentoring
experience for cooperating teachers and would not affect their future participation in the
teacher education program.
All who took part in the study signed an Informed Consent letter (see Appendix
C) according to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) procedures and policy. Following
guidelines of the IRB, participant confidentiality was maintained at all times throughout
the study.
29
Data Collection Logistics
Data Collection Techniques
With the assistance of the student teaching department where the researcher was
employed, school districts within a 70-mile radius were identified. As a common
courtesy, principals of each school were contacted for their approval of the research.
Email addresses of the identified cooperating teachers who had mentored a student
teacher within the last five years were found through websites and with the help of each
school’s office manager. A single-stage sampling procedure was used. Creswell (2009)
defines a single-stage sampling procedure as one where, “The researcher has access to
names in the population and can sample the people (or other elements) directly” (p. 148).
Each cooperating teacher was emailed an introductory letter along with the survey. (For
a sample of the introductory letter, see Appendix C.)
The cooperating teacher surveys were administered using an online survey tool,
Select Survey. To ensure that any one cooperating teacher did not take the survey twice,
follow-up or reminder emails were not sent out. Overall, the online surveys were
conducted over a 4-month period.
In Phase II of the study, 12 cooperating teachers were interviewed using both a
semi-structured and unstructured format. According to Rubin and Rubin (1995), most
qualitative research includes both a semistructured and unstructured format to direct the
conversation, though the balance of each format will vary. In this study, to gather more
specific information, a semi-structured format was used. While using this format, the
interviewer guided the discussion by asking specific interview questions. At times, the
unstructured format was included when the interviewer suggested the subject for
30
discussion and the interviewee answered any way they wished. For the semistructured
portion of the interview, the same 11 questions were asked of each cooperating teacher
interviewed. It should be noted that the first question on the list was an ice-breaker.
Throughout the study, an interview protocol was followed. Creswell (2009) suggests that
an interview protocol include the following components: a heading, the questions, probes,
recording of responses, and a thank-you statement. (For a sample of the interview
protocol, see Appendix D.)
The 12 interviews took approximately 45 minutes to one hour. The shortest
interview was 25 minutes and the longest interview was 75 minutes. The feminist
approach described by Rubin and Rubin (1995) was apparent during the interview
process. With the feminist approach, both the questions asked, and the way they are
asked, contribute to learning about others. Understanding is obtained from what the
conversational partners say and from the relationship developed between the researcher
and the interviewee. The interviewer should not dominate the discussion, and the
interviewer must realize it is not possible to be completely neutral. The interviewers
must consider their own beliefs and interests as they try to understand answers to
questions. The interview should not hurt the interviewee but actually leave the
interviewees feeling somewhat better for having talked with the interviewer. It is
important to give the interviewee a voice. It is important to give the interviewee a voice
(Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Each interview in the study was audiotaped, handwritten notes
were taken, and then the interviews were transcribed and read.
31
Data Analysis Procedures
For quantitative analysis, all data were entered into a statistical analysis software
package, the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), for later analysis. Statistical
analyses were conducted using descriptive analyses such as means, standard deviations,
frequencies, and percentages. Salkind (2008) states that “Descriptive statistics are used
to organize and describe the characteristics of a data collection” (p. 8). A codebook was
developed to assist in the analysis of the data. Vogt (2005) describes a codebook as a list
of variables and how they have been coded so they can be read and manipulated by the
computer.
After the interviews were transcribed and read through, the transcriptions were
uploaded into the Nvivo software program and coded. Using Nvivo, the qualitative data
were organized, coded, and analyzed for themes. Coding is a term used to assign a
shorthand designation to the data so that it can be easily retrieved at a later date
(Merriam, 1998), while Creswell (2009) describes it as the process of organizing material
into chunks before bringing meaning to the information. When describing the various
types of data analysis, Creswell (2009) states that “phenomenological research uses the
analysis of significant statements” (p. 184). Also, Rubin and Rubin (1998) suggest that
objects and events are understood by different people differently and those perceptions
are the realities that should be focused on. This interpretive approach examines the
interviewees’ views of their worlds, their work, and the events they have experienced.
After coding the data, concept maps were created to represent the various themes. Results
were summarized in paragraph form.
32
Researcher Positionality
According to Creswell (2009) good qualitative research contains comments by the
researcher about how their interpretation of the findings is shaped by their background,
gender, culture, history, or socioeconomic background. The role of the researcher as the
primary data collection instrument necessitates the identification of personal values.
According to Greene (2014), all qualitative researchers are influenced by our position and
experience as a researcher in relation to our participants. Positions are relative to the
cultural values and norms of both the researcher and participants (Merriam, 1998).
To complete my career goal to become a teacher, I was mentored by a
cooperating teacher during student teaching. At a later date in my career, I became a
cooperating teacher who mentored numerous teacher candidates during a practicum field
experience. [Though I have never mentored a student teacher for a semester, I am
essentially a member of the cooperating teacher group.] In my current role as an assistant
professor for a Midwest university, I supervise teacher candidates during the practicum
experience. Thus even though I have never supervised a student teacher for the semester
field experience, I am also essentially a member of the university supervisor group.
While supervising teacher candidates during practicum, I also work closely with
cooperating teachers. In summary, I hold prior knowledge and understanding of all
groups involved in the study: the student teacher, the cooperating teacher and the
university supervisor. This pre-existing knowledge of the context of the research with
regard to participants provided me the ability to ask meaningful questions.
During my doctoral studies, I completed a qualitative research study that informed
this particular study. That qualitative study looked at the teaching dispositions that
33
effective teachers possessed. From this particular study, I learned that my interviewees
had experienced difficult student teachers, which led me to want to discover more about
what cooperating teachers think about the student teaching process.
Trustworthiness
According to Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998, p. 90), “trustworthiness” is a global
qualitative concept introduced by Lincoln and Guba in 1985 as a substitute for many of
the design and measurement quality issues. In addition, the authors state that credibility
is considered the most important component in establishing trustworthiness of the
qualitative results.
In this particular study, several practices were implemented to establish
trustworthiness. Peer debriefing was utilized to explore aspects of the study that might
have been obscured or lost. In order to reduce such bias, the analyses were peer reviewed
by a professor from the university where the researcher is employed. Through this peer
debriefing, biases were exposed and interpretations were clarified. According to
Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) peer debriefing is a form of “internal validity” (p. 91).)
Creswell (2009) concurs with Tashakkori and Teddlie and adds that the peer reviewer
asks questions about the qualitative study and provides additional insights.
Because analyses of open-ended questions are subject to categorization bias on
the part of the researcher, another faculty member cross-checked codes which is called
intercoder agreement (Creswell, 2008) the Nvivo program was used to assist in coding
the themes.
Next, prolonged engagement in the field made it possible for the researcher to
learn the “culture” and be more mindful of the multiple perspectives of the research
34
participants. The use of thick description in the reporting of the data provides evidence
for the interpretations and conclusions from the qualitative investigations. According to
Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998, p. 92), this is considered close to “external” validity of
inferences and conclusions specifically in qualitative research. Researcher bias about my
job as a university supervisor was considered in this study.
Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) state that a merged framework that includes
elements of quantitative and qualitative is desirable, and Creswell (2008) concludes that
the many phases of the research process of the mixed-methods study relates to its
legitimation. I was the co-principal investigator, since my dissertation committee was
involved with assisting me with data analysis.
35
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
This study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 involved the use of an online
survey to gather opinions regarding the student teaching experience from the viewpoint
of cooperating teachers who had mentored a student teacher within the last 5 years.
Phase 1 reported cooperating teachers’ responses to 21 closed-ended and 2 open-ended
questions. A total of 153 cooperating teachers responded to the survey. Phase II of the
study, which was entirely qualitative in nature, involved interviews of 12 cooperating
teachers, a small subset of the 153 participants who responded to the online survey. The
interview responses gave insight into the cooperating teachers’ reasoning regarding the
clinical experience. This chapter presents the results of the two phases of the study.
Phase One: Research Question One
What are the cooperating teachers’ perceptions regarding the ways
they are prepared for the mentoring of student teachers?
The first research question explored cooperating teachers’ demographic
information (gender, grade level taught, background, education, experience) and specific
preparation for working with student teachers.
Demographic Information
As previously indicated, 153 cooperating teachers responded to the survey. Out
of the 153 participants, 55 (36.2%) were males, and 97 (63.8%) were females; one
participant did not respond, as shown in Table 1. When asked what grade level they
36
taught or had taught previously, the majority, 71 (47.0%), had taught at the high school
level, while 38 (25.2%) respondents indicated that they had taught only in the middle
school, and 42 (27.8%) reported that they had taught in both middle and high school.
Two respondents did not identify the grade level they taught. An examination of the
teacher educational backgrounds shows that 48 (31.4%) of the respondents currently held
only a bachelor’s degree, 100 (65.4%) currently held a master’s degree, 2 (1.3%) had
earned a specialist’s degree, and 3 (2.0%) respondents had earned a doctorate. Thus,
more than two-thirds of the respondents had completed at least one advanced degree.
Table 1
Cooperating Teachers’ (CTs) Demographic Information
Demographic Information N %
Gender
Male 55 36.2
Female 97 63.8
Grade Level Taught
Middle 38 25.2
High 71 47.0
Both 42 27.8
Educational Background
Bachelor’s 48 31.4
Master’s 100 65.4
Specialist 2 1.3
Doctorate 3 2.0
Number of Years Experience
Less than 5 1 0.7
5-10 35 22.9
11-15 37 24.2
16+ 80 52.3
Number of Student Teachers Mentored
1-2 57 37.3
3-5 40 26.1
6+ 50 36.6
Note. N = 153. Where numbers total less than 153, not all participants responded.
37
The data also show that out of 153 cooperating teachers, 35 (22.9%) had taught
between 5-10 years, 37 (24.2%) had taught 11-15 years, and 80 (52.3%) had taught 16 or
more years, as shown in Table 1. A total of 57 (37.3%) respondents noted that they had
mentored 1-2 student teachers, 40 (26.1 %) respondents reported they had had 3-5 student
teachers, while 56 (36.6%) said they had supervised 6 or more student teachers.
Preparation to Mentor Student Teachers
In describing their preparation, cooperating teachers could select any or all of the
following: University course, Handbook, TPAC training, Orientation session, Workshop,
Other, and None. As shown in Table 2, only 10 respondents (6.5%) had participated in a
university course that prepared them for working with student teachers. In response to
the choice of a handbook, 110 respondents (71.9%) had received a handbook to use when
working with a student teacher. No one had received TPAC training. (At the time that
this survey was given, this was training about the new edTPA program.) It was obvious
that the cooperating teachers surveyed had received little to no information about this
new student teaching program. Forty-five (29.4%) of the respondents said they had
participated in an orientation session, while 9 respondents (5.9%) had taken part in a
workshop. Seven respondents (4.6%) had had other preparation, while 10 (6.5%)
reported no preparation. Thus most of the respondents reported that they had not had a
course, fewer than one third had had an orientation session, and only about two-thirds had
received a handbook.
38
Table 2
Frequency Distribution for Cooperating Teachers’ Preparation to
Mentor Student Teachers
Number (Percent Responding)
Yes % No %
University course 10 6.5 143 93.5
Handbook 110 71.9 43 28.1
TPAC training 0 0 153 100.0
Orientation Session 45 29.4 108 70.6
Workshop 9 5.9 144 94.1
Other 7 4.6 146 95.4
None 10 6.5 143 93.5
Note. Columns do not total 100% because respondents could indicate
more than one alternative.
The analysis of the data showed that over two-thirds of the cooperating teachers
(69.0%) had at least one advanced degree. Over half (52.0%) had taught 16 or more
years, and almost two-thirds (63.0%) had mentored three or more student teachers. Thus,
they had a considerable amount of experience working with student teachers. However,
the respondents’ main source of information about the university’s expectations of them
was a handbook, and some did not even get that.
Phase One: Research Question Two
According to cooperating teachers, what factors help or hinder them when
working with student teachers?
Cooperating teachers were asked to rate how much they valued six kinds of
interaction with, or support from, the university supervisor: (a) frequent supervisor visits,
(b) prior information about the student teacher, (c) guidelines about expectations for the
39
student teacher, (d) guidelines about expectations for the cooperating teacher, (e) feed-
back about the cooperating teacher’s supervision, and (f) request for input on program
design. Respondents used a Likert scale with the following alternatives: Extremely
valuable, Somewhat valuable, Not valuable, Somewhat detrimental, and Extremely
detrimental.
Help That Cooperating Teachers Value
Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they valued frequent
university supervisor visits to their classroom to meet with or observe the student teacher.
Of the 151 cooperating teachers who responded, 63 (41.7%) of those who answered that
question said frequent visits by the university supervisor were extremely valuable, 74
(49.0%) said they were somewhat valuable, and 13 (8.6 %) said they were somewhat
detrimental or not valuable, as shown in Table 3. In the same vein, when asked about the
value they placed on information about the student teacher prior to mentoring him or her
during the field experience, 84 (55.6%) of the 151 cooperating teachers felt this was
extremely valuable, 62 (41.1%) respondents felt it was somewhat valuable, and 5 (3.3%)
respondents felt it was not valuable.
Regarding how cooperating teachers valued detailed guidelines about the
university expectations of the student teacher, 115 (76.7%) of the respondents indicated
that this information was extremely valuable, and 35 (23.3%) said it was somewhat
valuable. In addition, 113 (74.8%) of the cooperating teachers said they found guidelines
about university expectations of the cooperating teacher to be extremely valuable, 37
(24.5%) said the guidelines were somewhat valuable, and one (.7%) said they were not
valuable. Also, 91(61.5%) of the cooperating teachers indicated they felt it was
40
extremely valuable to receive feedback about their work with the student teacher; 45
(30.4%) respondents stated it was somewhat valuable, 10 (6.8%) stated it was not
valuable and 2 (1.4%) felt it would be somewhat detrimental. Finally, 79 (52.7%) of the
cooperating teachers found it extremely valuable to be asked for input on the student
teaching program, 66 (44.0%) said it was somewhat valuable, and 5 (3.3%) did not find it
valuable.
Table 3
Cooperating Teachers’ Perceptions of Interactions with the University Supervisor
Extremely Somewhat Not Somewhat Extremely
valuable valuable valuable detrimental detrimental N
Frequent supervisor visits
to my classroom to meet or
observe the student teacher 41.7 49.0 8.6 .7 0 151
Information about student
teacher prior to field
experience 55.6 41.1 3.3 0 0 151
Detailed guidelines about
university expectations
of the student teacher 76.7 23.3 0 0 0 150
Detailed guidelines about
the university expectations
of the cooperating teacher 74.8 24.5 .7 0 0 151
Feedback about my super-
vision of the student
teacher during the field
experience 61.5 30.4 6.8 1.4 0 148
Request for my input on the
student teaching program 52.7 44.0 3.3 0 0 150
Note. (Percentages given) are based on the total number of responses to each question. (Not all
participants answered every question.)
41
All in all, the results show that a large majority of the cooperating teachers
indicated that they wanted frequent visits and preliminary information from the university
supervisor. They also noted that they desired detailed guidelines about expectations not
only for the student teacher but also for themselves as cooperating teachers. Most of the
cooperating teachers said they wanted feedback about their work with the student teacher.
Finally, most said they wanted to be asked for input on the design of the student teaching
program. Respondents made clear that the university was not meeting these wishes.
Hindrances That Cooperating Teachers Face
In addition to the closed-ended questions, cooperating teachers were asked an
open-ended question to identify challenges they may have faced before or during the
student teaching field experience. Of the 153 surveyed, 120 responded to this open-
ended question. Teacher responses were grouped into seven themes: Lack of pre-
semester meeting with student teacher, Lack of planning time, Giving up control, Poor
quality of student teacher dispositions, Lack of preparedness for teaching, Issues with the
university supervisor, and Lack of training for cooperating teachers.
Lack of pre-semester meeting with student teacher. The data indicate that
most cooperating teachers had not met with the prospective student teacher before the
placement was made, so they did not have veto power. As one cooperating teacher said,
“I do not want to take a weak candidate.” Also, there could be a mismatch in personality
and styles of teaching, resulting in an uncomfortable learning environment. Furthermore,
the teachers indicated that without a pre-semester meeting, they cannot develop a plan
based on the individual student teacher’s needs. As one person wrote, “Each student
teacher requires a personalized approach.”
42
Lack of planning time. An issue that causes cooperating teachers concern
during the semester is a lack of time to plan with the student teacher, talk to the university
supervisor about the student teacher, or hold a three-way conference to collaborate about
expectations or concerns. One cooperating teacher commented:
Due to the many demands on teachers and the budget cuts, teachers are expected
to do more with less time available to get our duties completed therefore, there is
less time to have one-on-one conversations with student teachers.
Giving up control. A major theme that resonated throughout the responses to the
open-ended questions was the issue of giving up control of their classroom. Many
cooperating teachers grapple with this reality.
Allowing the student teachers to develop their own style of teaching can be
uncomfortable and difficult for the cooperating teacher. Many teachers think the way
they teach is the best style, so as one cooperating teacher stated, “Allowing the student
teacher to develop their own classroom management style is a [challenge]….”
One cooperating teacher stated, “I have a certain way I teach content. It is
difficult for me to let go of the control.” Another added, “I am very protective of my
students.” Although reluctance to give up control was based partly on emotions, such as
proprietary feelings or protectiveness, the reluctance also had a basis in rational concerns:
the cooperating teacher’s accountability and the student teacher’s weaknesses.
One problem area described by cooperating teachers was transitioning from
cooperating teacher to student teacher and back to teacher again. Giving up control and
taking it back seemed to provide many challenges for cooperating teachers. As one
cooperating teacher stated, “The cooperating teacher has to give up control of his or her
classroom to some extent, to someone who is inexperienced and then be able to gain
43
control back when the student teacher is gone.” Some said the transition can be difficult
for students, when the student teacher uses different methods of teaching.
Also, cooperating teachers struggled with balancing the needs of the student
teacher with their own students’ needs, since cooperating teachers are ultimately
accountable for their students’ academic success. As one cooperating teacher stated,
“Giving up the classroom is difficult when it appears the students are not getting as much
from the student teacher as they do from you.”
With the advent of high stakes testing connected to teacher evaluations,
cooperating teachers may reconsider whether giving up control of their classroom is a
smart idea. One cooperating teacher said, “As high stakes testing gets linked to our
evaluations, it is scary to allow someone else to prepare your students.”
Poor quality of student teacher dispositions. Another major concern for
cooperating teachers was poor student teacher dispositions, including an unwillingness to
do the extras, a know-it-all attitude, and a lack of professionalism. The responses
indicate that many student teachers are unwilling to do extras such as doing additional
work in planning and grading, participating in parent/teacher conferences, and attending
extracurricular activities.
Cooperating teachers observed that many student teachers approach the
experience with a “know it all” attitude that is not conducive to development in the
profession of teaching. One cooperating teacher said, “Many times they also believe they
know what they are doing and it’s almost as if they don’t even care to implement changes
suggested because they cannot possibly be doing it incorrectly.”
44
Another dispositional concern was lack of professional behavior. One
cooperating teacher compiled a list of poor student teaching behaviors that the
cooperating teacher had encountered: failure to meet deadlines, lost student work, lack of
preparation, sarcasm, poor acceptance of constructive criticism. Several other
cooperating teachers identified lack of work ethic as a major issue.
Lack of preparedness for teaching. Cooperating teachers also had issues
concerning a lack of preparedness for student teaching: inability to develop curriculum;
insufficient content knowledge; weak skills at teaching, classroom management, and
organization; all due to lack of experience. It was apparent to the respondents that the
practicum experience was not thorough enough. One cooperating teacher discussed this
lack of preparation: “I cannot risk my classroom of learners at the expense of an
unprepared student teacher.”
Many cooperating teachers commented on how student teachers apparently do not
understand that teachers are required to follow the school’s curriculum to meet Common
Core State Standards. One cooperating teacher commented, “Most student teachers want
to teach only what they have seen performed in their methods classes….”
Lack of content knowledge was a major concern by most cooperating teachers.
One cooperating teacher noted that the student teacher may not have enough knowledge
of the specific discipline to effectively instruct the students. Another agreed:
Some student teachers do not have enough content background to comfortably
lead lessons. This adds to the overall load by first requiring the student teacher to
learn the content and then plan lessons. This causes the student teachers to have
difficulty keeping up and demonstrating confidence in the classroom. It is
difficult to let the student teacher learn from their mistakes without causing your
students to suffer. It is hard to not correct the student teacher’s incorrect
information in front of the class.
45
Another major concern along with lack of content knowledge is the lack of
teaching skills often demonstrated by student teachers. One cooperating teacher
commented, “I feel like I am teaching basics that should have been learned in education
classes, such as lesson plans, time management, organization . . . and assessment.”
Another commented, “I would like to see student teachers more prepared in how to break
down concepts . . . [and] explain terms . . . in such a manner that they are understood by
all students.”
Some cooperating teachers noted that student teachers were not sufficiently
prepared in the area of classroom management, organizational skills, time management
skills, and experience working in a classroom. One cooperating teacher commented,
“Some practicums only allow [teacher candidates] to observe.”
Issues with the university supervisor. Other cooperating teachers reported a
host of issues with the university supervisor including: Failure to communicate
expectations for the cooperating teacher, Failure to communicate expectations for student
teachers, Lack of collaborative relationship among all three peers, and Lack of training
for cooperating teachers.
Many of the cooperating teachers commented that lack of communication was a
major issue as far as they were concerned. One cooperating teacher put it this way,
“Communication is key throughout the field experience, and this begins prior to the start
day of student teaching.” They were particularly troubled with the lack of information
they received concerning the expectations for them as a cooperating teacher.
Another issue was the lack of information regarding the expectations for the
student teacher, such as number of allowed absences and responsibility for independent
46
lesson planning. In addition, one cooperating teacher mentioned that sometimes the
information provided about the student teacher prior to the experience can be misleading.
She added that often the subject areas that she taught were not in the comfort zone of the
student teacher, probably due to a lack of communication. Another cooperating teacher
pointed out, “Open, honest communication between the three parties involved is key.”
Additionally, some cooperating teachers felt that the university supervisor did not
respect their judgment. If the university took the side of the student teacher, this was
often perceived by some cooperating teachers as not valuing their judgment. One
cooperating teacher shared her own personal situation:
With the unfit student teacher, it took several serious warnings to the university
supervisor before she truly recognized . . . how concerned I was. She kept
encouraging me to stick with her. I cannot do that at the expense of my students.
It wasn’t until the final week that the advisor understood . . . .
One cooperating teacher pointed out a different circumstance, “The supervisors
are giving positive feedback that outweighs the constructive criticism that the cooperating
teacher provides on a daily basis.” As one cooperating teacher noted, “There tends to
also be a reticence to give truly constructive criticism.”
Cooperating teachers also complained that university supervisors often did not
consider the student teacher’s time and workload. Many expressed their dismay at the
amount of time the student teacher spent outside of the classroom for workshops,
seminars, job fairs, and so forth. Cooperating teachers were also concerned that student
teachers were required to do too many outside assignment when they should be focusing
on their classroom responsibilities.
47
To be able to provide more support for the cooperating teacher, it is important that
the university supervisor develops a collegial relationship with the cooperating teacher.
The cooperating teachers often stated that they felt anchorless when mentoring student
teachers, and they would like to have a working relationship with the university
supervisor. Also, one cooperating teacher suggested that it is important for the university
supervisor to get to know their student teacher. Overall, as one cooperating teacher put it,
“When communication is lacking it creates problems. . . . Visible support would be quite
helpful for the cooperating teacher.”
Many cooperating teachers pointed out that they lacked training on “how to be a
cooperating teacher or how to evaluate a student teacher.” Other cooperating teachers
remarked on a lack of clear expectations for themselves and for their student teachers. In
the absence of training, cooperating teachers face several gaps in knowledge and skills.
Due to the fact that teaching a student teacher is more like teaching one’s peers than
teaching students in a classroom, the cooperating teachers indicated that mentoring a
student teacher involves different skills.
Three concerns were “how fast to bring them along,” “how much input [to] have
on designing lessons,” and “when and how to give up control of the classroom.”
Cooperating teachers also lamented that they do not know the expectations of the
university regarding evaluation of the student teacher. Providing meaningful feedback
appeared to be a related challenge. Cooperating teachers were concerned about
squashing the student teacher’s confidence when they gave constructive criticism.
Dealing with a difficult or weak student teacher often causes cooperating teachers much
anxiety. As one cooperating teacher noted, “If a student teacher is not well suited to the
48
profession, it is difficult to relay that information.”
In short, agreeing to accept a student teacher is a difficult decision because if the
teacher candidate does a poor job, this can be detrimental to the progress of the
cooperating teacher’s students. Because teacher evaluations and school funding depend
more and more on student progress, it can be risky for a cooperating teacher to take a
student teacher. Many cooperating teachers feel a sense of responsibility for their classes
and complain about the lack of opportunity to interview and possibly veto the prospective
student teacher. The cooperating teachers feel that many student teachers lack
preparation, lack sufficient content knowledge, and are unprofessional in several areas.
In addition, the student teachers’ “know it all” attitude and not being open to constructive
criticism from their cooperating teacher can make mentoring a student teacher difficult.
The data suggest that many cooperating teachers do not feel sufficiently informed about
university expectations of them as cooperating teachers. Also, they often expressed the
lack of good communication and support from the university supervisor.
Phase One: Research Question Three
What roles do cooperating teachers prefer to play?
As part of the survey, cooperating teachers were asked how comfortable they
were in each of the following situations: (a) the student teacher trying strategies that the
cooperating teacher does not use (encouraging independent thinking by the student
teacher), (b) the cooperating teacher evaluating the student teacher, (c) the university
supervisor evaluating the cooperating teacher and (d) the university supervisor
reassigning a student teacher who is having difficulties.
49
To rate how comfortable they were in each of the above four situations,
cooperating teachers used a Likert scale with the following response options: Extremely
comfortable, Somewhat comfortable, Neutral, Somewhat uncomfortable, and Extremely
uncomfortable. Cooperating teacher responses appear in Table 4.
Table 4
Cooperating Teacher Comfort Level with Situations that Occur During the Student
Teaching Experience
Extremely Somewhat Somewhat Extremely
comfortable comfortable Neutral uncomfortable uncomfortable N
Student teacher trying
new strategies that I
myself do not use 67.3 30.7 2.0 0 0 150
Evaluating my student
teacher 70.0 28.7 .7 .7 0 150
Being evaluated in my role
as a cooperating teacher by
the university supervisor 55.7 28.9 9.4 3.4 2.7 149
Reassignment of a student
teacher who is having
difficulty in their placement 28.4 31.8 24.4 13.5 2.0 148
Regarding the student teacher trying strategies that the cooperating teacher does
not use, 101 (67.3%) of the cooperating teachers said they were extremely comfortable
with this happening in the classroom, 46 (30.7%) said they were somewhat comfortable
with this, and 3 (2.0%) said they were neutral. When asked how comfortable they felt
evaluating their student teacher, 105 (70.0%) said extremely comfortable, 43 (28.7) said
somewhat comfortable, one (.7) respondent was neutral, and one (.7) somewhat
uncomfortable. On the issue of how comfortable they felt being evaluated by the
50
university supervisor in their role as a cooperating teacher, 83 (55.7%) said they were
extremely comfortable, 43 (28.9%) said somewhat comfortable, 14 (9.4%) were neutral,
5 (3.4%) said somewhat uncomfortable and 4 (2.7%) said extremely uncomfortable.
Finally, when asked how comfortable they felt with the reassignment of a student teacher
who is having difficulty in their placement, 42 (28.4%) said they were extremely
comfortable, 47 (31.8%) respondents said somewhat comfortable, 36 (24.3%)
respondents were neutral, 20 (13.5%) somewhat uncomfortable, and 3 (2.0%) extremely
uncomfortable.
In summary, nearly all of the cooperating teachers expressed comfort with the
student teacher trying something new. Almost all the cooperating teachers expressed
comfort with their role as evaluator. Being evaluated was somewhat less comfortable for
the respondents than evaluating the student teacher, where they were more in control.
Reassignment of a student teacher who was having difficulties evoked a relatively high
percentage of responses in the “neutral” and “uncomfortable” categories.
In addition to gauging the cooperating teachers’ comfort levels with various
situations, the survey items also asked the cooperating teachers to indicate their views
regarding whether they saw the university supervisor as an authority figure, a colleague,
or “other.” Of the 150 who responded, the majority (132, or 88%) saw the university
supervisor as a “colleague,” while 9 (6.0%) respondents indicated “authority figure,” and
another 9 respondents (6.0%) chose “other.”
Of the nine cooperating teachers who responded that they saw the university
supervisor as “other,” six saw the university supervisor as both an authority figure and a
colleague, and three commented that the university supervisor is a program administrator
51
with no actual authority. One of the nine added that the university supervisor does not
listen to the cooperating teacher even though the cooperating teacher has seen more
lessons taught by the student teacher.
Even though the above responses showed that most cooperating teachers saw
themselves as colleagues, responses to an additional question showed some uncertainty
about whether they would like to be asked for input on the design of the student teaching
program. Out of the 150 cooperating teachers who responded to this question, 72
(48.0%, or almost half) said maybe; 52 (34.7%) said yes; and 26 (17.3 %) said no.
When asked who should make the final determination of whether the student
teacher should pass student teaching or not, over two-thirds (69.9%) of the cooperating
teachers said they (the cooperating teachers) should determine whether the student
teacher receives a passing grade. Similarly, 114 (74.5%) said the university supervisor
should determine the outcome. The findings suggest that the majority of cooperating
teacher thought both the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor should decide
the fate of the student teacher. Only 16 (10.5%) thought a state evaluator should have the
final say, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Frequency Distribution About Who Should Make the Final Determination
Whether or Not a Student Teacher Passes
Number & Percent Responding
Yes % No % N
Cooperating teacher 107 69.9 46 30.1 153
University supervisor 114 74.5 39 25.5 153
State evaluator 16 10.5 137 89.5 153
52
In summary, nearly all (98.0%) of the cooperating teachers stated that they were
comfortable with the student teacher trying new strategies. This suggests that the
teachers encouraged independence among their student teachers. Also, the majority
(98.0%) of the cooperating teachers seemed equally comfortable evaluating their student
teacher.
A slightly smaller majority (85.0%) were comfortable with having the university
supervisor evaluate the way they mentor their student teacher. It should be noted that
15.0 % of those surveyed said they were neutral, somewhat uncomfortable, or extremely
uncomfortable with these situations.
Even fewer were comfortable with reassignment of a student teacher who was
having difficulty. A little over half (60.0%) were comfortable with this possibility, while
24.0% were neutral, and 15.0% were somewhat or very uncomfortable.
Again, a majority of the cooperating teachers (88.0%) consider the university
supervisor a colleague. However, when asked if they would like to give input on the
design of the student teaching experience, just over a third (35.0%) said yes while nearly
half (48.0%) said maybe. This hesitation indicates the concerns many cooperating
teachers have about being part of the planning process. While they value being asked for
their ideas, many have concerns about being part of the actual planning process.
When asked who should determine whether the student teacher passes or fails
student teaching, the cooperating teachers overwhelmingly supported the idea that they
should have a say in this decision (70.0%) along with the university supervisor (75.0%).
It was apparent that the cooperating teachers preferred that the decision not be made by a
state evaluator who reviews materials but is never in the student teacher’s classroom.
53
Phase One: Research Question Four
What type of preparation and support do cooperating teachers believe they would
benefit from in relation to their work with student teachers?
When asked how often they wanted the university supervisor to visit, contact
them, and observe their classrooms, 73 (48.7%) said monthly, 64 (42.7%) said every 2
weeks, 7 (4.7%) said less than once a month and 6 (4.0%) said weekly. Thus, nearly all
respondents were satisfied with the observation being monthly or every 2 weeks, as
shown in Table 6.
Also, when asked how often they would prefer the university supervisor to check
in with them, 74 (49.3%) said they wanted check-ins every 2 weeks, 39 (26.0%) wanted
monthly check-ins, 34 (22.7%) wanted weekly and 3 (2.0%) wanted less than once a
month. Thus nearly half of the respondents wanted the supervisor to check in every 2
weeks, while the other half was almost evenly split between weekly and monthly check-
ins by the supervisor.
Table 6
Desired Frequency of Contact with University Supervisor
Less than
Every once a
Weekly 2 weeks Monthly month N
How often do you prefer the
university supervisor to
observe in your room? 4.0 42.7 48.7 4.7 150
How often would you prefer
the university supervisor to
check in with you about your
student teacher? 22.7 49.3 26.0 2.0 150
54
In summary, a majority of the respondents said they would prefer the university
supervisor to observe the student teacher either every 2 weeks (42.7%) or monthly
(48.7%). In contrast to observations, cooperating teachers wanted the university super-
visor to check in with them often. Nearly half (49.3%) wanted check-ins every 2 weeks.
In addition to responding to closed-ended items, cooperating teachers were asked
an open-ended question about what the university supervisor could do to enhance the
cooperating teacher’s experience. Of the 153 cooperating teachers who took the survey,
120 responded to this question. Cooperating teacher responses were coded into six
themes: Clear Pre-semester Statement of University Expectations and Guidelines, Better
Communication from the University Supervisor, Increased Support for Decisions
Regarding Student Progress, Increased Feedback on how the Cooperating Teacher is
Doing, Collaboration of the Three Stakeholders as a Team, and Supervision in the
University Supervisor’s Specialty.
Clear Pre-semester Statement of University
Expectations and Guidelines
The data indicate that cooperating teachers would like to meet in person with the
university supervisor and student teacher before the semester begins. One cooperating
teacher recommended that the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor “have a
sit-down meeting . . . . , [with] both parties giving suggestions on how this can be a
positive experience.”
At this preliminary stage, cooperating teachers want to get the university
supervisor’s contact information. They also would like to receive written statements
about university expectations of them (due dates for submitting observation reports and
55
evaluations, etc.) and of the student teacher (specifics on lesson plans, tests, etc.). Other
cooperating teachers added, “It would also be helpful to know what they are being taught
to do” and—“if this experience is directly linked to a class—what are the classroom
expectations.”
To better understand these expectations and guidelines, many cooperating
teachers suggested that they would benefit from training. This training would also help
them to prepare for issues that might arise while mentoring a student teacher. One
cooperating teacher stated, “Slow down and explain the process rather than hurry in and
hurry out the door on site visits.”
Better Communication from the University Supervisor
Cooperating teachers would like to see better and more frequent communication
from the university supervisor, and they suggested multiple methods for communicating,
such as in person and by email. One recommendation that many cooperating teachers
proposed was for the university supervisor to provide more feedback to the cooperating
teacher about how he or she is doing. In addition, university supervisors need to
communicate more often to get the cooperating teacher’s feedback about the student
teacher’s progress and the cooperating teacher’s views on that progress. One cooperating
teacher stated: “It is never easy to just step out into the hall to have a serious
conversation, especially if the kid is struggling.” Some suggestions for improving
communication between the university supervisor and the cooperating teacher were the
following: visit 5-6 times per semester, more frequent check-ins, have mini-meetings,
discuss concerns through e-mail, and have bi-weekly meetings. One cooperating teacher
suggested, “Visit more frequently. . . discuss the progress of the student, give specific
56
areas of skill remediation, and listen to the cooperating teacher when a weak student is
performing at a marginal level.”
The data suggest that cooperating teachers would also appreciate more support
from the university supervisor throughout the student teaching program. One important
form of support that was mentioned quite frequently was support for the cooperating
teacher’s views concerning the progress of the student teacher—trusting the cooperating
teacher and supporting her decisions and not undermining her with the student teacher.
One cooperating teacher suggested, “When a supervisor makes a plan but then follows it
up with a statement of, ‘Do what works for you,’ it give the student teacher the
opportunity to disregard the plan.”
Collaboration of the Three Stakeholders as a Team
One cooperating teacher said, it is important that the university supervisor is
around, “giving the student teacher the opportunity to discuss situations that arise in the
daily classroom . . . . This can help the student teacher better understand and deal with
providing the best learning environment for students.”
Although cooperating teachers want more such conversations between student
teachers and university supervisors, cooperating teachers would like to be included in
these conversations. One cooperating teacher commented,
I would love to see more conversation between all three parties in order to truly
reflect and . . . [improve] on a regular basis. That’s what we all should be doing
as teachers, and modeling it sooner rather than later can only benefit the next
generation of educators.
57
Supervision in the University Supervisor’s Subject Specialty
Some universities currently uses site-based supervising to save travel time and
expense. However, several cooperating teachers suggested that the university supervisor
observe student teachers who have the same subject specialty they do. Also, student
teachers should work in the subject specialty they know best; for example, “[within the
field of English], some student teachers may not have much experience in a particular
area (journalism, speech, debate etc…).”
In summary, the cooperating teachers had a plethora of ideas to share on how the
university could improve the student teaching field experience. The data suggest that
cooperating teachers would like university supervisors to take a more active role in the
guidance of the student teachers, providing more and better communication and more
support for the student teacher as well as the cooperating teacher. In a nutshell,
cooperating teachers were saying the university supervisor needs to put more time into
the supervision of student teachers.
Phase Two: Interviews with Twelve Cooperating Teachers
Phase II of the study, which was entirely qualitative in nature, involved interviews
of 12 cooperating teachers, a small subset of the 153 participants who responded to the
online survey. Although too few to permit statistical comparisons to the survey
responses, the interview responses gave insight into the cooperating teachers’ reasoning
and suggested ideas for further research.
During the interviews, all participants willingly shared their perspectives of the
clinical field experience. They all shared with the researcher that at one time or another
they had experienced a difficult situation while mentoring a student teacher. Although
58
not unwilling to continue working with student teachers, they definitely wanted to talk
about problems they had encountered in mentoring a student teacher, collaborating with a
university supervisor, and the student teaching program in general. When questioned
why they continued to mentor a student teacher when they had experienced so many
problems, oftentimes they shared that someone had given them the opportunity to student
teach, so they felt the obligation to do the same.
Portraits of the Interviewees
A brief sketch of each cooperating teacher appears below. Note that pseudonyms
have been used to protect participants’ privacy. A summary of the information appears in
Table 7. (The portraits are arranged in the order of the number of student teachers the
cooperating teacher has worked with.)
Rikki Salzburger has a bachelor’s and master’s degree in special education and at
the time of the interview was working toward a specialization license. She had worked
for a behavioral health and addictions treatment facility before her first teaching job in
2004. She is a special education teacher who spent 2 years in a middle school and had
been teaching for 7 years in a small high school. She commented that she found working
with at-risk students “rewarding and some days you feel unappreciated.” Although she
was a veteran teacher, she had only worked with one student teacher, and the day after
our interview she was going to meet with her second student teacher for the first time.
Rikki was chosen for an interview because her comments reflected the importance of
cooperating teachers giving up control of the classroom and the necessity of allowing
student teachers to learn from their mistakes. Control issues were a major theme in this
study, and her thoughts that we should allow student teachers to make mistakes was in
59
contrast to the other cooperating teachers who feel like student teachers are making too
many mistakes.
Beth Englund has a bachelor’s degree in journalism, a master’s degree in English
and at the time of this interview was a third of her way through her Ph.D in media
technology. Prior to becoming a teacher she worked on a newspaper, so teaching is her
second career. She was in her eighth year of teaching English at a large high school, and
she had mentored two student teachers. Possibly due to her journalism background, Beth
had no problem expressing her thoughts about the student teaching experience and
teaching in general. Beth was chosen for an interview due to her insightful and in-depth
remarks about the student teaching program. She also pointed out that a major problem is
the fact that student teachers do not know how to handle constructive criticism. She feels
like this is an outcome of our culture and an issue that should somehow be addressed by
teacher educators.
Brad Englund has a bachelor’s degree in mathematics with an education minor
and had just completed his master’s degree in mathematics education at the time of this
interview. His future educational goal is to pursue a doctoral degree. He taught math at a
large local middle school and had been teaching for 13 years. In that 13-year time frame,
Brad had mentored two student teachers. During the course of our conversation, I found
Brad to be knowledgeable and passionate about the teaching profession. He became
fervent when we discussed the sad state of affairs that our educational system was mired
in, and he often lamented the lack of content knowledge that he had witnessed in the
future teachers that passed through his classroom doors. He spoke with air of authority;
he was a man who knew his convictions and was willing to share his thoughts. Brad was
60
extremely concerned with the future of education and appeared to welcome the
opportunity to share his thoughts about the student teaching program. Brad is the
husband of Beth Englund, but was not chosen for an interview for that reason. He was
chosen because of his strong and somewhat pessimistic views on the educational system.
Barbara King has a bachelor’s degree in physical education and two master’s
degrees, one in curriculum and instruction and one in educational administration. At the
time of this interview, one of her future goals was to become a principal. She was a high
school physical education teacher in a small high school. She had been teaching for 15
years, and had mentored two student teachers from two different universities. Since
Barbara had just completed her degree to become an administrator, she had considerable
insight about the expectations of future educators. She is truly concerned with how
teacher candidates are prepared to become educators and was eager to discuss this issue
at great length. Barbara was chosen for an interview because she advocated for more and
better communication between university supervisors and cooperating teachers, as well as
more training. She also mentioned the issue of personality conflicts with student teachers.
Emily Sweet has a bachelor’s degree in family and consumer science and 16
hours beyond a bachelor’s degree, but at the time of the interview she did not have a
teaching certificate; she had a provisional. Prior to teaching, she spent 20 years in the
field as a cook and manager of a local restaurant; she also ran a home day care. She had
been teaching family and consumer science in a small town high school for 9 years and
had worked with three student teachers. Talking to Emily was difficult at first. Her
responses to my questions were often one word, and she appeared apprehensive and
cautious. As we talked, she finally loosened up a little bit and shared with me that she
61
herself had never been a student teacher. She had worked with three student teachers, but
had never been a student teacher. Emily was chosen for an interview because she
mentioned two areas identified by current research: the lack of content knowledge by
student teachers and the lack of expectations for cooperating teachers.
Peter Paxton has a variety of educational degrees: a bachelor’s degree in industrial
technology education, a master’s degree in divinity, and a math endorsement. At the time
of the interview, he was taking classes to finish a master’s degree in math education so he
could teach dual-credit courses for the students in this small town high school. Peter was
a high school math teacher in a small town and had been teaching 11 years. He mentored
his first of five student teachers during his third year of teaching, and the five student
teachers came from two different universities. Peter is very laid back and easygoing.
When you meet Peter, you feel as though you have been friends for years. He willingly
answered all my questions and really seemed to appreciate the opportunity to discuss his
thoughts about the student teaching process. Peter was chosen for an interview because
he expressed concern about the lack of content knowledge that he had observed with the
student teachers he had mentored, and he mentioned that the student teachers he worked
with did not have the necessary work ethic that is required of teachers.
Jillian Bergfeld has a bachelor’s degree in business education and master’s degree
in technology. She was a farmer’s wife helping to run the family farm when she decided
to become a teacher. Jillian teaches business and technology classes at a large high
school. At the time of the interview, she had been teaching for 15 years. During the past
7 years, she had mentored three student teachers. When I met her she was dressed
professionally and appeared ready to get down to the business of the interview. As the
62
interview progressed, I could tell she had something on her mind. Her daughter had
recently finished her student teaching and the outcome was less than stellar. Jillian had
some real concerns about the student teaching program, and she relished the opportunity
to discuss them with me. Jillian was chosen for an interview because she wrote with great
conviction. She stated she firmly believed that cooperating teachers should decide if the
student teacher passes or fails, and she felt the new portfolio being required of student
teachers is too cumbersome.
LeAnn Runyon has two bachelor’s degrees: one in English with teacher
certification and one in journalism. She also holds a master’s degree in education. Her
original plan was to work for a newspaper or magazine, but she ended up teaching. At
the time of this interview, LeAnn had been teaching English in a small high school for 28
years. For the past 18 years, she had worked with four student teachers. LeAnn was
chosen for an interview because she stated that she felt the assessment of student teachers
is a difficult process, and she included that she felt that cooperating teachers do not
receive the support they need from the university supervisor. She shared that she had an
uncomfortable student teaching experience when the student teacher was pulled from her
placement without her knowledge.
Karla Perez has a bachelor’s degree in foreign language and a master’s degree in
teaching. At the time of the interview, Karla had been teaching Spanish in a small-town
middle school and high school for 13 years. For the past 6 years, she had worked with
six student teachers. Karla shared that she was from Argentina and due to her background
experience, she places a high value on education. She has high expectations for teachers
and strong convictions about the work ethic of many student teachers. She freely
63
expressed her thoughts and opinions on the student teachers she has mentored. She is not
a “do as I say” teacher; she is a “do as I do.” Karla was chosen for an interview because
she felt that expectations for cooperating teachers and student teachers were unclear, and
additional training in how to work with student teachers should be required. In addition,
she believed that university supervisors’ expectations for student teachers were too low.
Wanda Nolan has a bachelor’s and master’s degree in English as well as a
doctorate in English from the University of Illinois. At the time of the interview, Wanda
had been teaching English classes in a large high school; she had been working with
teacher candidates since 1975. She speculated that she had probably had over 50 student
teachers placed in her classroom. She explained that during the early years she mentored
two student teachers a year, one each semester. She presumed that she had mentored
student teachers from at least four universities. Wanda was willing to share her insights
and wisdom acquired from years of teaching. She has been on the teaching scene for
years and observant of many egregious actions by teachers, administrators, and
politicians. Her disdain for the flagrant misuse of power was evident in her discourse on
the subject of the preparation of student teachers. Wanda was chosen for an interview
because she expressed the need for more support from university supervisors for
cooperating teachers and she mentioned the need for teaching student teachers about
curriculum development.
Shannon Kimball has a bachelor’s degree in zoology and a master’s degree in
administration. At the time of the interview, she had been teaching life science and pre-
biology classes at a large middle school for 13 years. She had worked with six student
teachers during the past 7 years. According to her school district’s policy, teachers are
64
not allowed to have a student teacher until they are tenured. Through my conversations
with Shannon, it was apparent that she enjoys the role of a mentor. She likes guiding
new teachers and is willing to learn more about how to be a better mentor. Shannon was
chosen for an interview because she mentioned the need for more and better
communication between the cooperating teachers and the university supervisors, and she
expressed the need for training of cooperating teachers.
The last interviewee, Karen Luce, has a bachelor’s in geography and two master’s
degrees, one in special education and one in educational administration. At the time of
this interview, she taught special education in a large high school and was also an adjunct
professor at a local university. She was retiring after that year. In her 30-plus years of
teaching special education, she had mentored more than six student teachers. She said
that she had been working with teacher candidates since 1980. Karen was chosen to be
interviewed due to her comments about the need for more frequent supervision of the
student teacher by the university supervisor. She felt there is a genuine lack of content
knowledge exhibited by the student teacher, and university supervisors are often unaware
of this deficit due to infrequent visits. In addition, she proposed that university
supervisors have more unannounced visits.
As Table 7 shows, the interviewees ’ length of work experience ranged from 2 to
39 years, with an average of 12.4 years. The number of student teachers they had
mentored ranged from 1 to 50, with an average of 8; the interviewees were chosen for
their variety in terms of experience working with student teachers (four had mentored 1-2
student teachers; four had mentored 3-5 student teachers; four had mentored 6 or more).
65
Table 7
Demographic Information About Interviewees
Name
Degree
Content
Years of
Experience
Grade
Level
# of Student
Teachers
Rikki Salzburger
B.S.
M.S.
Special Ed
Special Ed
7 years
MLE & HS
1
Beth Englund B.S.
M.S.
Journalism
English
8 years H.S. 2
Brad Englund B.S.
M.S.
Math
Math Ed
13 years MLE 2
Barbara King B.S.
M.S.
M.S.
Physical Ed
C&I
Ed. Admin.
15 years H.S. 2
Emily Sweet
B.S. (no
teaching
certificate)
FCS 9 years H.S. 3
Peter Paxton B.S.
M.S.
Endorsement
Industrial Tech
Divinity
Math
11 years H.S. 5
Jillian Bergfeld B.S.
M.S.
Business Ed
Technology
15 years H.S. 3
LeAnn Runyon B.S.
B.S.
M.S.
English
Journalism
Teaching
28 years H.S. 4
Karla Perez B.S.
M.S.
Foreign Lang.
Teaching
13 years MLE & HS 6
Wanda Nolan B.S.
M.S.
Ph.D.
English
English
English
No
response
H.S. 50
Shannon
Kimball
B.S.
M.S.
Zoology
Ed. Admin.
13 H.S. 6
Karen Luce B.S.
M.S.
M.S.
Geography
Special Ed
Ed. Admin
30+ H.S. 6
66
To summarize Table 7, all of the cooperating teachers had a bachelor’s degree,
and all but one had teaching certification in the area being taught. The remaining teacher
had a provisional certificate in the subject she taught. Of the 12 interviewees, 11 had one
master’s degree, 2 had two master’s degrees, and another had completed some
coursework toward a master’s. One was in the process of completing coursework toward
a specialist degree. One had a doctorate and one had further hours towards a doctorate.
Thus, all but one of the interviewees had the necessary preparation for teaching in their
specialty, and all but one had at least one advanced degree.
Interview Responses
Using the Nvivo software program, the researcher grouped interviewee responses
into five themes: cooperating teachers’ lack of preparation for the semester, cooperating
teachers’ desire for feedback, need for better selection of student teachers, roles
cooperating teacher’s should play, and cooperating teachers’ desire for power and
respect.
Cooperating teachers’ lack of preparation for the semester. Although nearly
all of the interviewees held at least one graduate degree, most noted that they had not had
any specific preparation to work with student teachers. LeAnn, who had worked with
five student teachers, stated, “I don’t think I ever felt adequately prepared to [mentor a
student teacher].”
Cooperating teachers complained about a lack of written materials. In this age of
technology where information is immediately available at a person’s fingertips, it is
surprising to hear from many cooperating teachers that they were not provided with the
necessary materials to help them mentor student teachers. The list of missing items reads
67
like a laundry list: no assignments, no syllabus, no list of expectations, no lesson plan
sample, no written guidelines, and an inadequate evaluation tool. Others received
materials but did not find them helpful.
Lack of training was a major issue for the cooperating teacher. Only two
interviewees had been offered even a day of training for work with student teachers. The
other 10 said they had been offered no preparation, not even a meeting with the university
supervisor to explain guidelines. When asked about their preparation, Rikki and Beth
said, “There wasn’t any.” Brad stated, “I don’t think there was any prep at all. I met
with [the student teacher] the end of December, right before she came in January and that
was all, really, the prep we had. There wasn’t anything official through the university.”
Content of the training. Cooperating teachers expressed the desire to receive
training on how to mentor student teachers and address what student teachers need from
them. Several interviewees said training on mentoring should include training on how to
be transparent, to share their thinking with the student teacher so the student teacher is
aware of everything going on in the classroom. Rikki said, “Actually [knowledge and]
going out and applying my [knowledge] in the real world are two different things. It just
gets more difficult and that’s something the student teachers need to see.”
Interviewees suggested that university supervisors need to teach the cooperating
teachers ways to communicate with the student teacher. Brad mentioned the need to set
specific goals for the student teacher. Interviewees also emphasized the importance of
having training in the administration of a solid evaluation tool. Barbara stated,
[Cooperating teachers need] to understand how the tool is used, not as a “gotcha!”
but as a “these are your weaknesses. This is where I want you to get better. You
know this is how I’m going to lift you up and make you better.”
68
LeAnn stated, “I think it might be handy for us to know what red flags we should
be looking for in the first few weeks. . . . If this [behavior] is going on, you need to call
the [university supervisor] right away.” She added, “We have a huge responsibility, and
we may need a little coaching on how to communicate to this college student . . . that he
or she may fail.” LeAnn also mentioned she would like more information about the laws
concerning supervising student teachers. “What’s our legal responsibility? If a
[cooperating teacher] doesn’t pass them, [we] need to know, what am I responsible for?
What if she decided to sue [me] because I ruined her teaching?”
All the interviewees mentioned that they would like training about the
university’s expectations for them and for the student teacher as well as about procedures.
Karla stated, “I would like to have one day, even an hour, class on what the expectations
are and what to do and how to deal with difficult student teachers. I think that would
help immensely.” This training should include (a) a description of the important
components of the program and what needs to be accomplished during the 15 weeks of
student teaching, (b) university expectations for the student teacher, and (c) a list of the
procedures for the required paperwork and information on how to use the evaluation
tools.
Most interviewees wanted information about the student teacher prior to the
semester and even wanted to meet the student teacher. Brenda stated, “It would be
beneficial to have some time with the student teacher before [the student teacher] got to
the [placement site.]”
Many interviewees expressed a need for guidelines on when to allow the student
teacher to take control of the class. LeAnn said, “I don’t know how many weeks [of full
69
teaching] I should give them.” Training in how to implement the gradual release of
responsibility would be welcomed.
Interviewees wanted information on student teaching seminars and other
university-required activities that would take them away from their classroom
responsibilities. Brad commented, “Who knows what they do on those half days when
they come to the [university] and they have the seminars.” Along with more information
about the content of the seminars, Karla would like a calendar for the semester showing
the schedule of the seminars.
It appears that many cooperating teachers are not happy about student teacher
absences because they disrupt continuity and overburden the teachers. Peter commented
“One thing that drives me crazy is [the student teacher] is gone for three days, or
something like that, of the student teaching time.” Karen said, “Sometimes I felt the
university [supervisor] was expecting so much in terms of [the] assignments, such as
reflections and logs, and this was before edTPA.”
When asked how they were able to mentor a student teacher if they had not
received any training, cooperating teachers gave a variety of answers: their own student
teaching experience, their own teaching, their experience mentoring a student in the pre-
student teaching practicum, guidance and support from colleagues, and even information
from the student teacher. The cooperating teachers used these resources for lack of
anything else, but they made it clear that they really needed proper informational
materials and training.
Cooperating teachers’ desire for feedback. All interviewees wanted feedback
on their work with student teachers. Their reasons included accountability, concerns
70
about their suitability to mentor, and desire for growth as cooperating teachers.
Three interviewees said feedback could hold cooperating teachers accountable.
Wanda commented, “Maybe [cooperating teachers] wouldn’t be sitting in the lounge . . . .
[Cooperating teachers] leave at 2 weeks and . . . . they’re not back in the classroom until
the last week.” Beth agreed, stating, “I think sometimes people take student teachers
because they want a break. …There may be motivations other than preparing the next
generation of teachers to be excellent.” Shannon and Rikki suggested that if a
cooperating teacher wants to work with a student teacher, the cooperating teacher should
expect to receive feedback. Many of the interviewees added that getting feedback on
their work with the student teacher would help them to grow professionally.
Some interviewees had concerns about their own suitability to be a cooperating
teacher. LeAnn said, “I want to know if I’m doing a good job and whether or not I
should be [mentoring student teachers], because if they’re going back to the [university]
and saying ‘Man, she is so old and stuck in a rut,’ then maybe I shouldn’t be the one who
they’re coming to.”
Interviewees disagreed on who should give them feedback, when it should be
given, and in what form. Jillian, Karla, and LeAnn all thought the feedback about their
work with the student teacher should come from the university supervisor. On the other
hand, Barbara said the student teacher should be the one giving the feedback, but the
feedback should go first to the university supervisor, who in turn would pass it on to the
cooperating teacher.
Other interviewees would like to get feedback from both the university supervisor
and the student teacher. Rikki stated, “I think it should come from [both] because
71
…they’re [both] watching me.”
Several interviewees suggested receiving feedback during the semester so they
could correct any issues that might be hindering their ability to connect with the student
teacher. LeAnn commented:
If the student teacher is really having issues with me and goes to the supervisor,
then I need to know . . . . this is what we’re hearing . . . . , so maybe we can fix it.
Like the student teacher who was transferred, had I known I could have said, “I
am sorry…I hurt your feelings.”
By contrast, Jillian and Rikki suggested that the feedback should be given to them
after the student teaching experience. Karen agreed, explaining, “The student teacher
needs a letter of recommendation from the cooperating teacher, so that could be a little bit
of a conflict of interest.”
Beth mentioned that she would like to have the cooperating teacher meet with the
student teacher either alone or with the university supervisor present so all three could
participate in the discussion. Beth stated, “I think [collaboration] goes back to the idea
that no one teaches in isolation.” Wanda mentioned, “I don’t think it should be a secretive
type of thing where [the student teacher and the university supervisor] check it and give it
to you as the [cooperating teacher]. I think it’s something that should be shared.” By
contrast, Rikki suggested that university supervisors need to meet with the student
teacher alone. “The student teacher needs to feel comfortable sharing [information]
without having to worry about getting in trouble from the cooperating teacher . . . .”
Some interviewees wanted written feedback from the student teacher, either in the
form of a reflective piece with writing prompts such as, “This is what I didn’t like or I
didn’t understand. . . . . ” or a survey with a rating scale.
72
Need for better selection of student teachers. Interviewees mentioned that they
had had good experiences with most student teachers placed under their tutelage, but the
difficult or weak student teacher stood out in their minds. Due to the challenges they
faced when mentoring a difficult or weak student teacher, many interviewees said they
had considered not working with a student teacher again. Weaknesses included lack of
content knowledge, lack of knowledge about teaching pedagogy, and poor teacher
dispositions.
One issue mentioned by cooperating teachers throughout the interviews was a
student teacher’s weak knowledge of content being taught to the students. Cooperating
teachers not only have to teach the content first to the student teacher, they then worry
that their students will suffer because the student teacher is not knowledgeable enough to
be teaching the content. Brad gave an example: “[One student teacher] struggled with the
math content. She did not have a conceptual understanding, which led to procedural
incorrectness.”
Another concern was student teachers’ lack of knowledge about teaching
methodology. Karla said two of her six student teachers
…didn’t know how to write a lesson plan with an objective, even though I knew
that those things were taught because I took those classes and I remember doing
the lesson plans. [Sometimes] I just had to say, “Okay, you can just hand out the
papers and then I’ll just take over for today” . . . . because I couldn’t let the class
have 20 minutes free time because the student teacher didn’t prepare enough
lessons.
Karen teaches students in a self-contained special education classroom. One time a
student bit the student teacher. The student teacher was not prepared for an incident like
this, although she should have been trained for such situations. Over the course of the
73
semester, it was apparent that the student teacher was not comfortable working with
students with significant behavioral issues. “It was difficult to survive the eight weeks.
Most of the time when a student teacher leaves, there is a party; there was no party. We
were happy to see her go.”
Another selection issue is poor teacher dispositions. Some inappropriate behavior
on the part of student teachers may be a misunderstanding about what a teacher is
supposed to do. However, if these misunderstandings are not easily corrected, they
suggest a problem with attitude or disposition. Lack of professionalism may include lack
of initiative, late arrival, inappropriate dress, and inappropriate response to criticism.
Some student teachers treat teaching as an 8-3 job, and they don’t grade
assignments in a timely manner. Brad mentioned, “I think student teachers come in with
the perception that teaching is easy, and it is if you don’t do it well.” Beth mentioned that
student teachers don’t reflect, and she also mentioned that they want to teach her lessons.
Karla stated,
One time [my student teacher] called me in the middle of first hour and she was
supposed to be here at 7:30 am and so she got here close to second hour. So that
was tough because . . . . we are expected to be here when the students arrive in
case they have questions or they need help. And so that was hard for me to get
the student to understand, hey, punctuality is important. You know if you party
all night you still have to come to work and show that you are prepared.
Cooperating teachers also expressed a concern with student teachers’ dressing
inappropriately. Wanda mentioned, “One time I needed to talk to this girl because she
was wearing something that was short.” Some student teachers are not willing or able to
take constructive criticism. Beth stated,
Mistakes kind of paralyzed [my student teacher] . . . . When I found an error on a
handout or after the lesson, [the student teacher] would fall in on herself . . . . She
74
would weep from time to time . . . . There were “talking down from the ledge”
moments more often than I would say would be necessary.
LeAnn shared that she had a student teacher who had great difficulty taking
constructive criticism and got very angry. “She lied. She accused me of doing things I
didn’t do. She said I yelled at her….She had not turned in some [assignments] when they
were due, and she lost some things.” LeAnn was considering not passing her, so Le Ann
thought “The student teacher did what she did to get out of a situation.” LeAnn said the
student teacher was not doing a good job and [LeAnn] was holding her accountable.
Roles cooperating teachers should play. Cooperating teachers wear many hats
while working with student teachers. Often they find it difficult to know when to take off
one hat and put on another. The gradual release of responsibility is challenging, as is
knowing when to move from controller, to encourager, to mentor, and then to evaluator.
Their responses identified five roles cooperating teachers believe they should play:
Reciprocal Learner, Mentor, Content Expert and Role Model, Encourager of
Independence, and Evaluator.
A few interviewees mentioned that they would be helping the student teacher and
in turn the student teacher would help them by sharing new ideas. Beth stated, “If we are
not learning from [student teachers], then they are not learning from us. Shannon agreed,
saying, “I always tell my [student teachers] I’m here as much to help you as you are to
bring new ideas to me.”
Several cooperating teachers mentioned the importance of taking time to mentor
and collaborate with the student teacher. Sharing resources and ideas and helping with
planning and co-teaching are valuable ingredients of good mentoring. Emily mentioned,
75
“I always give [student teachers] lots of resources, and they always need help in
organizing their [lesson and unit] plans.” Karen said, “It’s important that student teachers
feel ownership of the class, and this is difficult to do if student teachers are using the
cooperating teacher’s lesson plans and not their own.” Beth pointed out, “If [the student
teacher] just teaches your lessons they’re learning absolutely nothing. . . . If we don’t
encourage the [student teachers] to invent I think we’re doing them a huge disservice.”
Beth stated,
Cooperating teachers] need to pull themselves away from [the student teacher]
and just be like, “I’m sorry but here’s the book, here’s the material, I’m not giving
you my slides, I’m not giving you my handouts . . . .You come up with something
first and then we’ll collaborate.”
Wanda and Emily felt that it was important that cooperating teachers be experts in
their content area. Wanda stated, “[They need to] know their subject matter very well.”
Emily stated, “I think [student teachers] need a lot of direction in keeping [content]
cohesive for the students and clear.” In addition, most cooperating teachers mentioned the
importance of being role models, exhibiting solid ethics, high standards, effective
classroom management, time management, good professional relationships, involvement
in professional organizations and professional development, and a passion for teaching. .
In the above roles, cooperating teachers felt it important to demonstrate transpar-
ency with the student teacher during the day-to-day teaching. By thinking out loud about
the process of making professional decisions, cooperating teachers provide the necessary
guidance for the multifaceted issues facing teachers daily. Shannon gave an example:
“The cooperating teacher says, ‘Hey, this unit or this assignment just didn’t do what I
wanted it to do. Can we go through this protocol of steps to help me make it better?’”
76
In summary, interviewees suggested several important roles that cooperating
teachers should model. Beth stated, “I think the student teacher should, if they really
want to envision the teaching experience, see every possible venue in which you
experience education.”
Cooperating teachers were asked whether they would consider allowing student
teachers to use new strategies that they have not used in their classroom. All
interviewees replied that they would allow the student teacher to use new strategies
where appropriate. Cooperating teachers wholeheartedly agreed that the introduction of
new strategies to their classroom was a positive feature of working with a student teacher.
Karen added, “[Student teachers] bring new ideas on how to use technology, new
websites, and different ways of approaching lesson activities. We need to be open
enough to embrace some of their new ideas.”
Interviewees admit that one potential problem they have with encouraging student
independence is a feeling of territoriality. Time and time again the interviewees
commented that giving up ownership of the classroom to the student teacher was the most
difficult part of being a cooperating teacher. Many teachers who would otherwise be
excellent mentors of student teachers will decline because they do not want to give their
classroom to the student teacher. As Peter said,
You have to dissociate yourself from your kids, which is hard because they’re [the
cooperating teacher’s] kids. You need to let [the student teacher] take care of
them for a while, and [the student teacher] might not [work with the students] the
same way [the cooperating teacher] does.
Quite aside from feelings of territoriality, interviewees had rational concerns
about allowing the student teacher to try new strategies.
77
Barbara saw the need to be informed about the strategy. She said, “If [the student
teacher] can’t verbalize to me how [the strategy] is going to work or why they want to do
it, then I don’t feel like [the student teacher] truly understands what they’re doing.”
Karen stated, “It is important that the strategy meet the needs of the students.
There are some strategies that would be in conflict with a student’s disability, and I am
thinking particularly of students with autism.” Rikki pointed out that she absolutely loves
to see new strategies—“as long as they are not counter-productive. You know, bringing
technology into the classroom is a great thing; too much technology, though, with kids
that have learning disabilities [can be] overwhelming.”
Several interviewees were willing to grant approval for the use of a new strategy
as long as the strategy had research supporting its use. Brad mentioned that student
teachers tend to use strategies that are flashy instead of research based. He said, “It is all
bells and whistles.” Many cooperating teachers were concerned that student teachers are
looking for the cool activity, not the meaningful activity. They stressed that student
teachers need to reflect on the purpose for using the strategy.
Several interviewees suggested that student teachers often approach the student
teaching field experience with the idea they can teach any topic they choose. They appear
to be totally unaware that general educators follow a predetermined curriculum plan.
Wanda stated, “I like [new strategies] provided [they] fit within the educational level of
the students [in the class]. I think new ideas are great as long as they’re relevant to the
topic and the common core standards.”
In summary, most interviewees favored letting the student teacher try new
strategies. Interviewees like learning from the student teacher and having the student
78
teacher learn from them. However, interviewees expressed concern that a strategy might
be unclear, might not be research based, might not address accommodations, or might not
be aligned with the school’s curriculum.
Taking on the role of critic and evaluator can be difficult and gut-wrenching
when the student teacher is struggling. Many cooperating teachers stated that they feel
unprepared to handle this aspect of the student teaching process.
Karen mentioned, “It is difficult sometimes for a cooperating teacher to be open
enough to allow a [student teacher] to make a mistake once in a while. They need to be
able to make some mistakes while [the cooperating teacher] is there to offer some
constructive criticism or guidance.” Peter found communicating to the student teacher
the mistakes they are making was difficult. He said, “When they’re not doing something
right, I struggle with telling [the student teacher] without attacking them.”
If it is difficult to give constructive criticism during the semester, it is even harder
to make final evaluations once the student teacher has finished. This is a difficult
undertaking, sometimes due to the cooperating teacher’s feelings of personal failure,
sometimes due to extenuating circumstances.
Brad stated,
The last student teacher . . . . probably should not have been a teacher. I’m
usually pretty forthright and just come out and say that, but she had some
extenuating circumstances. She had a newborn at home . . . . and I remember
thinking, “That little kid’s got to have a chance.” And the only chance that little
kid’s going to have is if mom gets a job. And that right or wrong became my
concern because I kept thinking of my kids at home. She’d spent four years of
her life going after this, and it was hard for me to put a quash on that.
He went on to say he knows he should have failed her but with everything going on in his
life and in hers it was not worth the fight. Brad said, “I took the easy road out.”
79
Cooperating teachers’ desire for power and respect. Cooperating teachers had
a number of issues with the university supervisor concerning respect for their judgment
and the power to influence decisions. Brad, for example, mentioned that one time he had
some concerns with a student teacher, but when he brought up his apprehension to the
university supervisor she brushed him off. Brad said, “I just didn’t talk to her again
because I didn’t envision that going anywhere.”
Wanda also commented on lack of support. “The [student teacher] wanted to
teach my AP seniors The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, which is about sixth or seventh
grade level. I tried to talk her out of [teaching that book] and she still wanted to do it.
The university supervisor would not help me change her.”
Unfortunately, some interviewees reported that the university supervisor not only
had failed to consult with them and listen to their advice, but had not even informed them
of reassignment or pass-fail decisions. What was extremely troublesome for LeAnn was
the fact that she left work on Friday and when she returned on Monday her student
teacher had been transferred. LeAnn said, “I was blindsided….That was hard, very
hard.” Not only was she told after the fact, it was her principal who told her about the
situation. She said she was called to the principal’s office, and it felt like she was being
disciplined. LeAnn mentioned that after this incident she refused three student teachers;
she told the university supervisor not to give her the difficult or needy ones.
Karen stated that “student teaching was something everybody passed.” She told
about a student who she felt did not have the skills to interact with children with
disabilities. However, he was the grandson of an instructor in another department at the
university, and she was told it would be politically inappropriate not to pass a 4.0 student
80
related to someone on staff.
Brad shared a situation that happened to him.
I had given my [student teacher] a couple of low marks and she came to me
apologetically and said, “My EIU coordinator is just going to change those scores
and raise them . . . . My student teacher] felt like that was wrong and I did too. I
was fairly upset about it but decided not to raise a stink.
Peter shared that he experienced challenging issues with three of the five student
teachers he worked with. One time Peter left the calculus class to the student teacher,
only to learn that as soon as he left the room the student teacher told the class that when
they got to college they needed to goof around more and have some drinks. Peter went
on to say that he was pretty tough on the student teacher’s midterm evaluation. When he
spoke with the university supervisor, the university supervisor supported Peter’s
evaluation, but, as Peter pointed out, there was never a meeting with all three of them, so
he did not know if the university supervisor supported him with the student teacher.
When Peter spoke to the university supervisor about the incident, the university super-
visor told him he could not talk about anything “specifically because of confidentiality.”
One potential source of confusion about the power and respect cooperating
teachers should have was a misunderstanding about the university supervisor’s prior
relationship with the student teacher and the supervisor’s content knowledge. Emily, for
example, initially assumed the university supervisor would know the student teacher
well; however, once she learned that many times the university supervisor does not know
that person, she stated that the cooperating teacher should have the final say in whether
the student teacher passes or fails the student teaching experience. Emily said, “It seems
it should be somebody that knows them. I guess if that’s the case it should be [the
81
cooperating teacher.]” With this source of confusion removed, interviewees clearly felt
they should have more respect and in some cases more power to contribute to decisions.
Specifically, cooperating teachers want respect for their judgment in making decisions
during the semester, respect for their ideas about the design of the student teaching
program, power to veto a student teacher’s placement in their classroom, a vote on
whether to reassign a struggling student teacher, and a vote on pass-fail decisions.
Cooperating teachers want respect for their judgment in making decisions such as
when to allow a particular student teacher to take over the classroom, what proposed
teaching strategies to veto, how to determine that a student teacher is struggling, and
when to consult a university content specialist. Interviewees point out that they work
with the student teacher daily, as opposed to observing the student teacher 4-5 times
during the semester.
All interviewees wanted to have a voice in the design of the student teaching
experience. Jillian suggested one reason for being included in the program design
process: “I think that cooperating teachers would feel more positive about having more
student teachers if they had some say in what’s expected.” Another reason cooperating
teachers think the university should listen to them is implied by the wealth of suggestions
they have provided. They clearly have unique knowledge that would improve the student
teaching process. (Appendix E lists and explains the interviewees’ design suggestions.)
Interviewees want the power to refuse the placement of a particular student
teacher in their classroom. They feel they should have this veto power because they are
accountable to their own students, and the mismatch of personalities can create an
uncomfortable learning environment for the semester. Furthermore, some have had
82
unfortunate experiences in the past working with weak student teachers, so they do not
trust the university’s elimination of weak candidates.
Interviewees want a vote on whether to reassign a struggling student teacher.
Again, the cooperating teacher sees the student teacher five days a week and has more
evidence on whether the student teacher is seriously struggling. In addition, cooperating
teachers are best able to clear up any misunderstandings about their own expectations.
As a first step, Rikki suggested that the supervisor come in a lot more if there is a
concern “to make sure it is fair.” Rikki continued by stating,
I think it is the responsibility of the cooperating teacher to let the supervisor know
there’s a problem. The cooperating teacher should say to the university
supervisor, “Hey, this is what I’ve witnessed,” and I think the university
supervisor needs to take a more active role in saying maybe this isn’t a good fit
or…observing the [classroom] environment that the student teacher is working in
[before any decision is made]. I don’t think keeping a student teacher in a
placement . . . that is a bad fit is helping anybody.”
Pass or fail. Who decides? All the interviewees wanted a vote in deciding
whether to pass or fail the student teacher. Eight interviewees felt that decision should
involve at least the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor; in some cases the
interviewees suggested additional decision-makers. One of the interviewees thought the
university supervisor should have the power to overrule the cooperating teacher’s
judgment since the supervisor is accountable for the final grade. However, even this
cooperating teacher felt the university supervisor should consult with the cooperating
teacher before making the final determination; otherwise, the cooperating teacher is not
going to want to take student teachers.
83
Jillian thought the cooperating teacher should have the final decision.
The [cooperating teacher] is really given the chance to see the [student teacher’s]
growth potential. We all start out at something not feeling as confident as we are
whenever we’ve competed something. I think [the cooperating teacher definitely
sees if a student teacher is going to get it. When you make the decision to be a
cooperating teacher, I think you need to know that the final decision is going to be
yours.
Peter stated he too thought the cooperating teacher should make the final decision.
He went on to say, “The [cooperating teacher] is going to have the day-to-day experience
with the [student teacher]. On the other hand, he recommended,
If there’s going to be a failure, though, I think the [university supervisor] will
hopefully have been involved in the conversation before that happens. I think if
the [student teacher] is going to fail, the [cooperating teacher] needs a second
opinion and the [university supervisor] would be the second opinion.
Wanda stated that she felt both the university supervisor and the cooperating
teacher should decide whether the student teacher passes or fails the semester. LeAnn
added that if there is an issue the [university supervisor] should look at the [student
teacher’s] practicum experience.
Beth commented that “the supervisor was in the room maybe 4-5 times the entire
semester,” therefore, she thought, the cooperating teacher and university supervisor’s
decision should hold equal weight. Shannon said the cooperating teacher’s evaluation
should weigh even more than the university supervisor’s evaluation.
Rikki brought up an additional concern: the possibility that a student teacher
could be placed with a poor cooperating teacher and that a bad evaluation would not be
fair to the student teacher.
Karen suggested that the pass-fail decision should be made by the cooperating
teacher, the university supervisor and the student teaching department. Beth suggested
84
the use of a panel where the cooperating teacher, the university supervisor and a
professor would question the student teacher and look at the portfolio.
None of the interviewees mentioned the possibility of a portfolio assessment.
When informed about the new edTPA program (a portfolio, including a video made by
the student teacher, that is assessed by an out-of-state evaluator), five of the interviewees
said they had never heard of edTPA and the remaining seven knew very little about this
new evaluation system. Barbara said it would be great if all three (cooperating teacher,
university supervisor, and edTPA evaluator) evaluated the student teacher. Two
evaluators could have bias and the third party could be unbiased. She was concerned,
however, that the cultural differences of teachers in their respective states could impact
the evaluations of teachers in Illinois.
On the other hand, Karla pointed out, “You can’t judge [on the basis of] one day
of teaching.” Jillian too had reservations, agreeing that the evaluator is only seeing a
snapshot, and adding that “if [the cooperating teacher] sees that the [student teacher] is
putting effort into the [portfolio] and not the classroom, then there’s going to be a
negative feeling.” Overall, interviewees did not support the new edTPA portfolio process.
In summary, cooperating teachers definitely wanted a vote on the pass-fail
decision and suggested that the evaluation of the student teacher should be shared by the
cooperating teacher and the university supervisor. If necessary, another representative
from the student teaching department or the edTPA portfolio process could be used as a
tie-breaker.
Because cooperating teachers wanted more power and respect, they suggested
ways to develop a more collegial relationship with the university supervisor. This
85
relationship should involve a good rapport built upon mutual respect and trust. The
university supervisor can develop this positive relationship by offering a training course,
spending more “face” time with the cooperating teacher, sharing responsibility,
supporting their judgments, collaborating on decisions and showing appreciation.
Interpretation Phase
According to Creswell (2009), in an explanatory sequential mixed methods study
the quantitative data is collected and analyzed, followed by the collection and analysis of
the qualitative data. In this next phase, “the interpretation phase, ” the qualitative
findings will help to elaborate or extend the quantitative results (p. 220). It is important to
note that in this study, the interview questions and the survey questions do not correspond
exactly. The interview questions are supposed to add more depth and insight to the
responses from the survey questions.
The premise of the present study was that cooperating teachers are an integral
component of the student teaching program but rarely are they consulted concerning the
mentoring of student teachers. Phase 1 was a quantitative study, in the form of a survey,
which examined cooperating teachers’ background and preparation to mentor a student
teacher, their experience with the student teaching process, their role as a cooperating
teacher, and their perspective on the student teaching experience. Descriptive statistics
were used to examine factors associated with mentoring student teachers. Also included
in the survey were two open-ended questions. One question asked the cooperating
teachers about the challenges they have faced as a mentor of a student teacher, while the
other open-ended question asked the cooperating teachers to consider what the university
supervisor could do to provide a better student teaching experience for the cooperating
86
teacher. Phase II of the topical-cultural study used qualitative interviewing, which
emphasizes the importance of giving the interviewee a voice (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).
Twelve interviewees, who had mentored a student teacher within the last five years, were
asked the same specific 11 questions. Their ideas and understandings were learned about
through the interviews, while the interpretation of the study is supported by reasoning and
evidence. According to Rubin and Rubin (1995), the interpretative approach recognizes
that meaning emerges through interaction and is not standard from person to person. The
overall text of a conversation and the importance of seeing meaning in context make up
the interpretative process.
The researcher collected information in the form of 153 surveys from middle
school and high school cooperating teachers who worked with a Midwestern university.
From the 153 cooperating teachers who participated in the survey, 52 participants were
willing to be interviewed by the researcher. Of the 52 possibilities, 12 cooperating
teachers were chosen to be interviewed. The data are organized according to the themes
that were found.
Cooperating teachers’ lack of preparation for the semester. Respondents to
the survey indicated that they had very little preparation to be a cooperating teacher.
Most of the respondents reported that they had not had a course, fewer than one-third had
had even one orientation session, and only about two-thirds had even received a
handbook. Survey respondents said they valued receiving written guidelines about the
university’s expectations of the cooperating teacher (99%) and of the student teacher
(100%). Respondents also wanted support during the semester in the form of frequent
visits (91%) and check-ins (49%).
87
Responses to the open-ended survey questions showed a desire for guidelines (for
example, a general rule about when the student teacher should assume control of the
classroom), as well as for face-to-face training and support during the semester.
Interviewees’ responses concurred with those from the survey. They too indicated
they needed preparation about how to handle the role of a cooperating teacher. The
interviewees stated the need for written guidelines about the university’s expectations for
them and for student teachers, and they also wanted this guidance in the form of training.
Specifically, interviewees would like this training to consist of not only explanation of
guidelines but also group discussions. In terms of support, interviewees said they wanted
the university supervisors to make frequent visits and check-ins to address problems
when they arose.
Cooperating teachers’ desire for feedback. Survey respondents (92%)
indicated they would value receiving feedback about their work with the student teacher.
Respondents (85%) also indicated they would be comfortable with the university
supervisor evaluating them in their role as a cooperating teacher. It appears that most
cooperating teachers would like to know what mentoring skills need improvement.
The interviewees suggested formative feedback during the semester concerning
their work with the student teacher, as well as an end-of-semester summative evaluation
provided by the university supervisor and possibly by the student teacher. The
interviewees provided several practical suggestions on how the evaluations could be
conducted.
Need for better selection of student teachers. Survey respondents (97%) said
they wanted to meet with the student teacher prior to the student teaching field
88
experience. A possible reason for meeting the student teacher prior to the semester is
suggested by the responses to the open-ended question about challenges. Many
cooperating teachers mentioned working with a struggling student teacher as a major
concern. A mismatch of personalities could create an uncomfortable classroom
environment, and this finding supports the prior research. Interviewees discussed the
weak student teacher at length and said they wanted to meet student teachers in order to
veto the student teachers they felt were not ready for the experience.
Roles cooperating teachers should play. When survey respondents were asked
if they were comfortable evaluating the student teacher, 98% replied yes they were
comfortable. This response indicates cooperating teachers are willing to evaluate the
student teacher. Prior research shows that cooperating teachers are usually uncomfortable
with evaluating the student teacher, so this finding disconfirms the research.
The interviewees in this study mentioned that there were times when they were
uncomfortable evaluating the student teacher, but they still wanted a say in the process.
Interviewees recommended that the pass/fail decision be a mutual decision of the
cooperating teacher and the university supervisor.
When survey respondents were questioned about how comfortable they were
allowing student teachers to try strategies they did not use, 98% stated they were
comfortable. This disconfirms the research literature that states cooperating teachers do
not want student teachers to use new strategies.
Reciprocal learning was considered a benefit of having a student teacher, but in
the role of a mentor cooperating teachers feel they are responsible for the learning given
to student teachers and often part of this learning process is the use of new strategies.
89
Interviewees support the survey responses, as all 12 of them indicated they had no
problem with student teachers trying new strategies but… The ‘but’ was loud and clear,
and the cooperating teachers’ answers provided more information about why many
student teachers feel that their cooperating teacher is opposed to their using new
strategies. Interviewees gave insight into this misconception. Expressing concern that a
strategy might be unclear, or incorrectly applied might not be research based, might not
address accommodations, or might not be aligned with the school’s curriculum to meet
the Common Core State Standards.
When responding to the question about challenges, many survey respondents
indicated that giving up control of the classroom was quite difficult. The survey
respondents went on to say that they felt accountable to their students and sometimes
emotions were involved, as they felt protective of their students.
Interviewees indicated feeling the same. Time and time again the interviewees
commented that giving up ownership of the classroom to the student teacher was the most
difficult part of being a cooperating teacher. Interviewees even expressed a desire for
training in how and when to give up control of the classroom.
Cooperating teachers’ desire for power and respect. When survey respondents
were asked if they viewed the university supervisor as an authority figure or a colleague,
88% said colleague. Responses to the open-ended survey question showed that
cooperating teachers felt that more collaboration among all three stakeholders (the
cooperating teacher, the university supervisor and the student teacher) would improve the
student teaching experience for all involved. This agrees with the viewpoint of the
interviewees, who expressed a strong desire to be treated as a colleague, as an equal.
90
When survey respondents were questioned about how comfortable they would be
if a student teacher who was having difficulty in their classroom were reassigned, a little
over half of the respondents indicated they would be comfortable with this action. This
response did not support the interviewees who were not comfortable with reassignment.
It was observed that many of the cooperating teachers interviewed had a negative experi-
ence with the reassignment of a student teacher. In the final analysis, it appeared that the
issue with reassignment was not itself the problem but rather the lack of collaboration or
communication between the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor.
When asked if a trained state evaluator through the edTPA program should assess
the student teacher, only 10% of survey respondents approved. Interviewees confirmed
the survey respondents’ opinion. Interviewees appeared to dislike the thought that an
outside evaluator was needed to decide who passes or fails. Interviewees felt that an
“outsider” would only get a “snapshot” of the type of teaching that took place during the
student teaching experience.
Four interviewees stated that the cooperating teacher alone should determine
whether the student teacher passes because the cooperating teacher has seen this person
in action many more times than the supervisor or any other possible evaluator. However,
eight interviewees suggested a system of checks and balance in order to reduce the
possibility of bias. These interviewees said the cooperating teacher should share the
power with at least one other: the university supervisor and possibly also a representative
of the student teaching department, or a professor, or a portfolio evaluator.
When survey respondents were questioned on whether they would like to be
asked for their input about the student teaching program, 97% said yes, and this supports
91
the findings from the interviews. However, when asked if they would like to give input in
the design of the student teaching experience, just over a third (34.7%) said yes, while
nearly half (48%) said maybe. This hesitation might indicate that while cooperating
teachers value being asked for their ideas, many have concerns about being part of the
actual planning process. This could be due to time commitments.
All of the cooperating teachers interviewed stated that they would like to give
suggestions for design of the student teaching program. In addition, all but one
interviewee had specific ideas for improving the student teaching program. Interviewees
suggested changes in the type and length of the student teaching placement, partnerships
between the school district and the university, addition of auxiliary duties for student
teachers, and better assessment of student teachers and cooperating teachers.
Survey respondents (97%) said they wanted to meet with the student teacher prior
to the student teaching field experience. In response to the open-ended question about
challenges, many respondents indicated they had at one time or another dispositional
concerns about student teachers. These concerns include lack of professionalism, a
know-it-all attitude, and poor work ethic. Interviewees agreed with the survey
respondents and elaborated by adding that they would like to have the power to veto the
student teaching placement.
Limitations of the Study
The results of the findings lead to further limitations. One limitation of this study
was that Phase I was limited to descriptive statistics such as percentages, frequencies and
means. To include inferential statistics such as correlations or analyses of variance an
additional research question would be needed. Another limitation of this study was the
92
small population of interviewees in Phase II. In order to provide sufficient probing and
depth in the interviews, the number of interviewees had to be limited. Future survey
research could address topics that were suggested by the interviews. For example, the
comfort level of cooperating teachers when they failed a student teacher would have been
an excellent addition to the survey.
93
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Study and Findings
The purpose of this two-phase sequential explanatory mixed methods study was
to investigate cooperating teachers’ perceptions regarding the mentoring of student
teachers, including the support and training they receive and still need while mentoring
student teachers, the roles they play and challenges they face during the clinical field
experience. In order to achieve this purpose, the study used survey design methodology
and interviews.
In Phase I of the study, a cross-sectional survey design was used to examine the
attitudes, opinions, and needs of cooperating teachers about the mentoring of student
teachers. The quantitative portion of the online survey included 21 Likert-type questions
that were analyzed using the SPSS software program. The qualitative portion of the
survey included two open-ended questions. A total of 153 cooperating teachers
responded to the survey. The open-ended questions offered insight into challenges
cooperating teachers face during the student teaching experience and provided a better
understanding of the support the cooperating teachers need from the university
supervisor.
Phase II of the study, which was entirely qualitative in nature, involved
interviews of 12 cooperating teachers, a small subset of the 153 survey participants. The
94
12 cooperating teachers were selected to be interviewed according to their responses to
the open-ended survey questions. In addition, their in-depth responses helped to answer
the four research questions that guided this study and connected to themes found in
current literature and in Phase 1 of this study. These themes included preparation of
student teachers; training of cooperating teachers; support for cooperating teachers;
communication among the university supervisor, the cooperating teacher and the student
teacher; control by the cooperating teacher; and supervision by the university supervisor.
One interviewee was chosen as an outlier because of his somewhat controversial views of
the student teaching program.
The Nvivo software program was used to analyze the data, and coding was
utilized to identify reoccurring themes. Codes were established by looking at key words
and main concepts. Cooperating teachers’ responses were coded several times, and
concept maps were created to organize the information into the main themes. Data were
initially analyzed one transcript at a time and subsequently by comparing participants’
responses from the 12 different cooperating teachers. Data were repeatedly dissected,
analyzed, regrouped, and reanalyzed, and the qualitative analysis was peer reviewed. The
interview responses gave insight into the cooperating teachers’ reasoning and suggested
ideas for further research.
In Phase I, the analyses of the survey and open-ended questions were organized
under the four research questions guiding the study. In Phase II, the data from the
interview questions were organized into five reoccurring themes that related to the four
research questions.
95
Phase II of the study centered on the stories and experiences of the cooperating
teachers who were interviewed. A snapshot of each cooperating teacher who was
interviewed is found in Phase II under the heading “Portraits of the Interviewees.” All
participants shared their experiences and perceptions relating to their role as a
cooperating teacher. The interviews with 12 cooperating teachers included middle school
and high school teachers with a range of 7-30 years of experience working with student
teachers in a variety of content specialties. This diversity allowed for different
experiences and still produced many consistent themes. Most of the cooperating
teachers’ experiences and perceptions fit into the themes of lack of preparation, desire for
feedback, better selection of student teachers, roles cooperating teachers should play and
desire for power and respect. Cooperating teachers also shared their ideas for
improvement of the student teaching program.
Interviewees expressed frustration with the lack of communication about the
university’s expectations for them and for the student teacher. Regardless of the
participant, a consistently repeated observation was that cooperating teachers needed to
receive support from the university supervisor, especially when dealing with a difficult
student teacher. Cooperating teachers stated often that they felt they would benefit
greatly from some type of training, and they expressed the need for more collaboration
with the university supervisor. All 12 interview participants expressed the desire to be
seen as a colleague rather than a subordinate.
Another significant finding was that cooperating teachers see themselves as
colleagues of the university supervisor. They would like to collaborate with the
university supervisor when it comes to providing formative and summative evaluation to
96
the student teacher, providing input on the design of the student teaching program, and
deciding whether to reassign the student teacher to a new placement. It was determined
that cooperating teachers would like the university supervisor to check in with them more
often, and they would prefer the university supervisor to be more visible and include
unannounced observations of student teachers as part of their supervisory procedures.
Cooperating teachers identified six roles they thought all teachers who work with
a student teacher should play: mentor, content expert, role model, evaluator, collaborator,
and encourager. One major role that cooperating teachers play is that of a mentor, and
cooperating teachers expressed a strong desire to receive more training on how to become
a better mentor of student teachers. Cooperating teachers stated repeatedly they
appreciate the opportunity for reciprocal learning, the sharing of strategies and ideas with
the student teacher. With that said, interview participants revealed that a major deterrent
to using strategies provided by the student teacher is that in some cases the strategies are
not research based or do not have a clear purpose.
Evaluating the student teacher can cause cooperating teachers a great deal of
anxiety, especially if the student teacher is weak. For this reason, it was found that
cooperating teachers would like to meet the prospective student teacher before the field
placement, and they would like the power to veto the student teacher. Cooperating
teachers mentioned the importance of being a good role model (effective teaching,
professionalism and collaboration skills), and throughout the student teaching experience
they stressed the importance of being transparent in their work with student teachers.
The most significant finding from the online survey and from the interviews was
that cooperating teachers have significant issues with the university supervisors. They
97
feel that their input about the student teacher’s ability to teach is often ignored by the
university supervisor, especially when the student teacher is having difficulties.
Cooperating teachers often expressed that their opinion is not respected or valued by the
university supervisor. This lack of respect is evident when the university supervisor
places a student teacher at the last minute without giving the cooperating teacher an
opportunity to meet with the student teacher prior to the placement, when the university
supervisor reassigns a student teacher to another placement without discussing this
important decision with the cooperating teacher, and also when the university supervisor
overrules a cooperating teacher’s negative evaluation and gives the student teacher a
passing grade.
Based on information and research provided in the literature review in Chapter II,
it is apparent that listening to the voices of the cooperating teachers is long overdue.
Discussion
This study focused on the responses of 153 cooperating teachers to an online
survey about the perspective of cooperating teachers about the mentoring of student
teachers. From the 153 cooperating teachers, 12 were chosen to interview I order to
examine more deeply the perspective of cooperating teachers about the mentoring of
student teachers. While the investigation is not considered a large-scale research study of
the cooperating teacher-university supervisor-student teacher relationship, it does provide
some meaningful information about the student teaching program. In this climate of
reform of student teaching programs, the voices of the cooperating teachers surveyed and
interviewed could assist in improving the university’s existing student teaching programs.
98
Earlier findings from the literature showed that very few studies had been
conducted about the cooperating teacher’s perspective of the student teaching program.
Through the implementation of this study it was discovered that cooperating teachers
want to discuss many aspects of the student teaching program, and they appreciated the
opportunity to share their insights and knowledge. Cooperating teachers had many
concerns. Some of these issues related to university supervisors’ attitudes towards
cooperating teachers, but some issues could be traced back to university policies.
Major findings of this study include the following: cooperating teachers’ lack of
preparation for the semester, a need for better selection of student teachers, cooperating
teachers’ desire for feedback, roles of the cooperating teacher, and cooperating teachers’
desire for power and respect. Each finding is discussed along with related literature,
recommendations for practice, and recommendations for future research.
Cooperating Teachers’ Lack of Preparation for the Semester
According to the literature and this study, there is a lack of preparation and
training for cooperating teachers. This lack of preparation includes lack of information,
lack of materials, lack of expectations, and lack of guidelines for the cooperating teacher
and the student teacher.
This study showed that cooperating teachers tend to be well educated. Analysis
of the data indicated that two-thirds of the cooperating teachers who responded to the
survey had advanced degrees, while 11 of the 12 interviewees held at least one advanced
degree. This confirms the findings of Killian and Wilkins (2013) that cooperating
teachers are more likely than other teachers to hold a master’s degree, while Clarke
(2001) found that cooperating teachers were almost twice as likely to hold a master’s
99
degree compared to non-supervising teachers.
Clarke (2001) and Killian and Wilkins (2013) both stated it was not clear whether
such academic preparation affects the cooperating teacher’s desire for workshops or other
preparation that is specifically related to the field experience. However, it was very clear
from this study that academic background does not reduce the desire for preparation to
act as a cooperating teacher. Of the 11 interviewees with advanced degrees, all wanted
preparation for the supervision of student teachers. Even so, experience as a cooperating
teacher might reduce the need for specific preparation. Also in his research, Clarke
(2001) indicated that experienced cooperating teachers did not see the need for formal
coursework in preparation for their role. Experienced cooperating teachers may well not
want formal coursework, but they still need to know the university’s expectations for
their work with student teachers.
In this study, many cooperating teachers mentioned that they needed more
training in the preparation to work with student teachers. Hastings (2004) and Smith
(2007) suggest that workshops should prepare cooperating teachers to facilitate planning,
explore practices different from their own, engage in discussions that explore teaching
ideas, explore questions and uncertainties about teaching, and assist student teachers.
Unclear expectations. The cooperating teachers in this study stated on several
occasions that they were unclear of what was expected of them during the mentoring of a
student teacher. This study confirms the findings of several researchers. A study by
Beck and Kosnik (2000) revealed considerable confusion about expectations. Beck and
Kosnik state that the lack of clarity and agreement regarding the role of cooperating
teachers is a “pressing practical problem” (p. 209). Anderson (2007); Baum, Powers-
100
Costello, VanScoy, Miller, and James (2011); and Sandholtz and Wasserman (2001)
agree that cooperating teachers are unclear about what needs to be taught. An
interviewee from the portraits, Rikki, stated, “As far as getting preparation there really
wasn’t any. I was pulling from my own experiences as a teacher.”
Desire for support from the university supervisor. The data from this study
indicate that cooperating teachers value support from the university supervisor during the
student teaching experience. They expect the support to be in the form of communication,
frequent observations and other visits, discussions about issues, guidance for student
teachers, and backing for cooperating teacher’s decisions.
Cooperating teachers in this study also wanted discussions about the mentoring
process. Sadler (2006) found cooperating teachers wanted support on how to be a more
effective mentor. Gardiner’s 2009 study found that the mentoring development provided
to the cooperating teachers was insufficient, and cooperating teachers reported they were
left to their own devices to learn how to mentor. Cooperating teachers in this study
reported similar experiences. Also, this present study confirms the findings of Horton
and Harvey (1979), Koster, Korthagen and Wubbels (1998), and Kent (2001) that
university supervisors should provide in-service meetings for cooperating teachers to
educate them about the mentoring process.
According to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE, 2001) it is important that universities not only prepare cooperating teachers but
also support them during the field experience. Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005);
Grove, Strudler, and Odell (2004); and Hastings (2004) state that cooperating teachers
need to be supported so they will be more able to handle the emotional aspects of the role
101
of a cooperating teacher. Schultz (2005) suggests that university supervisors move from
the role of trainer to that of mentor and work collaboratively with cooperating teachers.
Clarke (2001) states that cooperating teachers valued periodic meetings during
the field experience. He further suggests increasing the frequency and duration of
school visits by university supervisors, holding more in-services, and communicating
systematically with the cooperating teachers; all of these supportive interactions are
essential to the development of an effective clinical experience. This finding aligns with
suggestions from Chelsey and Jordan (2012) about the need for better support for the
cooperating teacher from the university supervisor. Clarke (2001) found that 70% of the
cooperating teachers interviewed indicated they had on-site meetings with a supervisor.
Even though such meetings are often administrative in nature and take very little time,
they can provide cooperating teachers information about supervision of teacher
candidates.
The present study disconfirmed the above findings by Clarke (2001).
Cooperating teachers in this study said they need information, but they need it before the
semester begins. During the semester, they want to discuss progress with their student
teacher, and brief “hallway meetings” are too rushed.
Cooperating Teachers’ Desire for Feedback
This study found that cooperating teachers want and value feedback about their
work with student teachers. Of the 153 cooperating teachers who responded to the
survey, 91% said they value feedback about their work with student teachers. All of
those interviewed desired feedback. This study confirmed the finding of Clarke (2001)
that 85% of cooperating teachers wanted feedback. Hastings (2004) supports these
102
findings, quoting one cooperating teacher as saying, “Help! I just—I’m not sure I’m
doing the right thing. What have I done wrong? Have I not been giving her enough
feedback?” (p. 139). An interviewee from this study, LeAnn, stated:
I want to know if I am doing a good job and whether or not I should be mentoring
a student teacher. If the student teachers are saying, ‘Man, she is old and stuck in
a rut,’ maybe I shouldn’t be the one mentoring them.
Feedback on the cooperating teacher’s mentoring can assist the development of a
cooperating teacher. However, when the present study asked about cooperating teachers’
desire for formal evaluation, only 85% of survey respondents were comfortable with this
type of feedback. Some cooperating teachers said they were concerned because they felt
unclear about the university’s expectations for them and for the student teacher.
Interviewees from this study suggested several options for receiving feedback. They did
not agree on who should give it, when it should be given, or what form (in writing or face
to face). In Clarke’s 2001 study, the participants also disagreed: 26% requested a survey
response from their student teachers; 21% asked for a post-semester meeting with the
student teacher, cooperating teacher, and university supervisor; and 18% requested a
meeting between the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor.
Mentoring and Its Benefits for the Cooperating Teacher
Cooperating teachers in this study noted that mentoring a student teacher was
beneficial to their growth as an educator, as they learned new ideas, strategies and current
approaches to teaching. Grove, Odell and Strudler (2006) define this mutually beneficial
sharing of knowledge as “reciprocal mentoring” (p. 90). Hamilton (2010) found that
cooperating teachers reported they were better organized and more aware of their own
practice. Sandholtz and Wasserman (2001) and Landt (2004) revealed that cooperating
103
teachers found an improvement in their own teaching, and they credited their work as a
mentor. According to Brink, Grisham, Laguardia, Granby, and Peck (2001), increased
reflection, increased time to plan, and their value as a mentor provided the cooperating
teachers with feelings of self-efficacy. Mentoring a student teacher helps cooperating
teachers to become more effective educators as they examine and reflect on their
interactions and decisions while working with the student teacher.
Need for Better Selection of Student Teachers
This study also found that universities need to do a better job of selecting student
teachers. When student teachers are not prepared in the pedagogy or methodology of
teaching, the cooperating teacher spends valuable time teaching the student teacher
before any students in the class are taught. Weak student teachers were a major concern
of the cooperating teachers in this study. When the cooperating teachers know they
should fail the student teacher, many emotions surface.
According to Chesley and Jordan (2012) many student teachers are not prepared
in content knowledge, and this is a major concern for cooperating teachers, as this lack of
preparation results in cooperating teachers spending an inordinate amount of time
instructing the student teacher in the necessary content knowledge for teaching.
Sandholtz and Wasserman (2001) found that cooperating teachers were concerned with
the possibility of re-teaching their own students after the student teacher taught, while
Hamilton (2010) found that cooperating teachers felt their first obligation was to the
academic growth of their own students. Goodfellow (2000) added that when student
teachers lacked initiative or fail to take responsibility for students’ learning, cooperating
teachers felt frustrated and tension developed between the cooperating teacher and the
104
student teacher. This present study corroborates the above researchers’ findings. Due to
student teachers’ apparent lack of content knowledge, many cooperating teachers in this
study felt a need to identify weak student teachers prior to placement. If necessary, they
wanted to be allowed to deny the placement. Eric, an interviewee from this study,
commented:
One of my biggest issues is student teachers’ lack of content knowledge.
Working with my last student teacher was quite difficult, due to her lack of
content knowledge. There were just enough mistakes that I had to say, “No. I
think it’s this way or okay we’re going to have to correct this tomorrow.” I tried
not to do it in front of the kids, but the misinformation had to be corrected.
Roles of the Cooperating Teacher
The interviewee participants in this study recognized the need to have criteria for
selecting cooperating teachers, and they identified six main roles played by cooperating
teachers: mentor, content expert, role model, evaluator, collaborator, and encourager.
From this study it was determined that cooperating teachers need to be supportive
providing guidance throughout the experience; be knowledgeable about the content being
taught; be transparent about all the aspects of teaching; model ‘best practices’;
consistently provide formative evaluations; plan lessons with the student teacher; and
encourage independence. In the selection of cooperating teachers as mentors of student
teachers, it is important that the cooperating teachers chosen by university supervisors
and by school principals have a solid understanding of methodology and pedagogy. In
addition, the interviewee participants reported that they lacked training for these roles
and relied on their own teaching experience or assistance from colleagues to navigate
the many issues that would arise during the student teaching semester. A few
cooperating teachers mentioned they consulted with their student teacher to find out
105
necessary information.
According to Gardiner (2009), cooperating teachers noted that mentoring a
student teacher was challenging due to the multiple roles they were required to perform
(p. 69). Cooperating teachers stated that they need support when they transition from
classroom teacher to mentor-teacher due to the duality of their roles. The present study
confirms this finding.
Often an ideal placement is considered one in which the cooperating teacher
models, co-plans, provides opportunities for practice and reflection, and provides
feedback, while the student teacher assumes increasing responsibility (Darling-Hammond
& Bransford, 2005; He & Levin, 2008; and Henry & Weber 2010). According to Sayeski
and Paulsen (2012), four specific characteristics were identified as important in the
selection of a cooperating teacher: (a) provide an example - - be a good role model, (b)
use research-based strategies, (c) use “think alouds” while modeling effective teaching,
and (d) be identified by peers, administration, or past student teachers as a high-quality
teacher. Attributes that Sadler (2006) felt set apart quality cooperating teachers from
weak cooperating teachers were their ability to provide constructive feedback, their
ability to relinquish control of the classroom, and their ability to encourage and praise the
student teacher. Russell and Russell (2011) and Sawchuk (2012) declared that education
programs need to be more intentional about how cooperating teachers are selected in order
to ensure that the field experience is productive for all involved; it is clear that the
student teacher needs a role model who is skilled and experienced in mentoring (Weasmer
& Woods, 2003). This study would include in its description of an ideal placement, a
cooperating teacher who uses “best practices” and is transparent about every aspect of
106
teaching. Sayeski and Paulsen (2012) refer to a frequently-expressed sentiment: “Not all
good teaches make good mentors.” They suggest a more appropriate statement, and this
researcher agrees: “Only good teachers can be good mentors” (p.127).
Cooperating Teachers’ Desire for Power and Respect
A major finding was that cooperating teachers wanted increased power and
respect. They wanted to be treated more like equals and seen as colleagues. They want a
more powerful voice in decisions about selection of the student teacher, instructional
choices, reassignment, and passing of the field experience. Specifically, they wanted the
power to veto a prospective student teacher, veto a student teacher’s instructional idea,
have an equal voice in the reassignment of a struggling student teacher, have an equal
voice in the pass/fail decision, and contribute to the design of the student teaching
program.
Power to veto a prospective student teacher. Cooperating teachers in this study
indicated they wanted to meet with the student teacher prior to the placement and wanted
veto power over the selection of the student teacher. If, upon meeting the student teacher,
the cooperating teacher felt this placement would not work due to the student teacher’s
personality, academic background, or teaching ability, the cooperating teacher wanted to
be able to reject the student teaching applicant. As one cooperating teacher said, “I do
not want to deal with a difficult student teacher.”
The literature supports this study by showing the importance of compatibility
between the student teacher and the cooperating teacher. Student teachers consider the
personal characteristics of the cooperating teacher to be six times more important than
supervisors or cooperating teachers believe (Koerner, Rust, & Baumgartner, 2002; He &
107
Levin, 2000), and, according to LaBoskey and Richert (2002), compatible placements are
more conducive to growth. Cooperating teachers involved in this study agreed with those
findings.
Power to veto a student teacher’s instructional idea. A common complaint by
student teachers was that the cooperating teacher did not allow them to use new strategies
that they had learned in their college courses. Brookhart and Freeman (1992) and Smith
(2007) report a disconnect between strategies that students learn in college classes and
those modeled by cooperating teachers. Sinclair, Munns, and Woodward (2005) suggest
that many cooperating teachers encourage their student teachers to ignore what they
were taught during their teacher education courses because their "real learning" takes
place during student teaching. Often researchers and student teachers alike think that
cooperating teachers want everything taught their way and are not willing to use new
ideas. This negative perception of the cooperating teacher fails to consider valid reasons
for vetoing new instructional ideas proposed by student teachers. According to Chesley
and Jordan (2012), cooperating teachers pointed out that some student teachers used
strategies that lacked a research base. In the present study, cooperating teachers
explained that they needed to veto some of the student teacher’s ideas if these ideas were
not researched based, did not meet the Common Core State Standards, or did not fit into
the curriculum in place by the school district. Where there is a disconnect between
strategies that student teachers learn in college classes and those modeled by cooperating
teachers, a student teacher may be applying new strategies without regard to context.
An equal voice in reassignment and evaluation. This study found that
cooperating teachers wanted an equal voice in any reassignment of a struggling teacher.
108
This study found that, during the semester, cooperating teachers wanted to speak as an
expert to the university supervisor. They wanted the university supervisor to listen to
what they knew because they saw the student teacher five days a week and were better
able to assess any progress or lack of progress. Data from this study showed that
cooperating teachers wanted an equal voice in decisions about whether to fail the student
teacher. They wanted to be seen as colleagues in the supervision process, and they did
not appreciate the university supervisor’s undermining their authority by overriding their
recommendations. In the present study, cooperating teachers complained that often if
they evaluated a student teacher negatively, the university supervisor reassigned the
student teacher to another cooperating teacher so the person would pass. This created
negative feelings toward the supervisor. This study confirms the finding by Hastings
(2004) that one possible reason for cooperating teachers to be uncomfortable in the role
of evaluator is a lack of agreement between the cooperating teacher and the supervisor
concerning standards for the student teacher.
Cooperating teachers did not want their voice to be disregarded, but they also did
not want to be the only one making this decision. In that respect, this study confirms the
findings of Anderson (2007); Hastings (2004); and Sinclair, Dowson, and Thistleton-
Martin (2006) that failing a student teacher is uncomfortable. However, this study
disconfirms Sinclair et al.’s finding that cooperating teachers want to avoid anxiety by
giving up the power to decide, and does not support Feiman-Nemser’s 2001 suggestion
that the evaluation process should be considered as an administrative function. When
asked about letting an outside evaluator assess the student teacher, this idea met with a
resounding No! Anderson (2007) agrees, stating that cooperating teachers must assess
109
and provide final evaluations of student teachers before they can receive their teaching
certificate. The written evaluation at the end of the practicum can “make or break a
career” (p. 2).
Cooperating teachers in this study reported that they would like to provide more
formative evaluations, and they would like to provide this feedback in a discussion
format with all stakeholders present at the meeting. They do not want to be a part of the
‘gotcha’ evaluation.
This research study confirms Sinclair, Dowson and Thistleton-Martin’s 2006
finding about the anxiety cooperating teachers feel when mentoring a weak student
teacher. On the other hand, the cooperating teachers in this study wanted to be
considered a colleague during the assessment process. They felt the assessment process
should be a mutual decision between the university supervisor and the cooperating
teacher.
Briers and Edwards’2001 study documented the importance of the relationship
that develops between the teacher candidate and the cooperating teacher. According to
these student teachers, the clinical field experience and the mentoring provided by
cooperating teachers were valuable components of teacher preparation programs.
Shroyer, Yahnke, Bennett, and Dunn (2007) indicated that professional development is
also important in improving the cooperating teacher–student teacher relationship.
According to Bennett (2002), cooperating teachers want to be included in the
preparation and planning of the student teaching program. The present study confirms
Bennett’s finding up to a point. When asked if they would like to be consulted about the
design of the student teaching program the cooperating teachers said yes. However,
110
when asked if they wanted to help with the actual design of the student teaching program,
there were quite a few ‘maybes,’ indicating that many cooperating teachers were hesitant.
A possible deterrent to getting 100% yes responses to this question could be the prospect
of an abundance of meetings.
In summary, cooperating teachers wanted more power and respect; however,
giving them this power would work only if they have the ability to use power wisely.
This, in turn, would depend on careful selection and training of cooperating teachers.
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendations for the University Supervisor
It is important that the university value cooperating teachers’ commitment and
dedication to the student teaching program. It is imperative that the university recognize
the challenges that cooperating teachers face and provide the necessary training and
materials to ensure the highest quality student teaching experience. This study was
designed to listen to the voices of the cooperating teachers. The findings, therefore, can
inform teacher preparation programs, cooperating teacher-university communication, and
cooperating teacher training and support.
Better selection of cooperating teachers. A recommendation for future practice
would be for university supervisors to consider the need for better selection of
cooperating teachers. Universities should set up interviews with potential cooperating
teachers and develop criteria for selection. One possibility is to make it more of an honor
to be chosen as a mentor for a student teacher and rely less on the principal’s suggestions,
which can often be biased. Principals may select a cooperating teacher as a way to
provide an aide in an unruly classroom or as support for a less than stellar cooperating
111
teacher. Choosing the best possible cooperating teacher should be the top priority of the
university.
Better selection of student teachers. The implication for future practice is that
the university supervisor needs to schedule a meeting between the cooperating teacher
and the student teacher before the semester begins in order to allow the cooperating
teacher the opportunity to veto an unsuitable student teaching candidate. This screening
process would provide a level of comfort for cooperating teachers. Problems and failures
during the student teaching semester can often be attributed to incompatibility issues or
poorly prepared student teachers.
Preparation and training before the semester. Time and time again, research
has shown that cooperating teachers do not know what the university’s expectations are
for them or for the student teacher. From this study the implication is that it is important
that university supervisors make time in their busy schedules to meet with cooperating
teachers to discuss the university’s expectations. One suggestion for future practice is
that university supervisors first clarify expectations and then spend time building rapport
with the cooperating teacher so feedback would be considered as support and not as
judgment of the cooperating teacher’s mentoring ability.
Many researchers have found that cooperating teachers need training about the
supervision of cooperating teachers. Unfortunately, due to the ever-present myth that
cooperating teachers do not want training, very few universities have provided the much-
needed training. The implication for future practice is clear: universities need to provide
funds and personnel for training of cooperating teachers.
112
Support from the university supervisor. Lack of support was a major
complaint from the cooperating teachers in this study. This study recommends that in the
future, university supervisors check in and visit every two weeks. Also, cooperating
teachers would appreciate better communication about expectations, as well as
information about the program. These changes to the student teaching program would
require financial backing by the university. Since research strongly supports providing
feedback to cooperating teachers about their mentoring of the student teacher, this
researcher suggests setting aside time for the university supervisor to meet with the
cooperating teacher during the semester and at the conclusion of each semester that the
cooperating teacher mentors a student teacher. Future practice could involve giving
feedback in multiple forms, and future research could determine which of these is the
most effective.
Power to veto instructional idea. Another recommendation for practice is for
the university supervisor to treat the cooperating teacher as a colleague, listening
carefully to the cooperating teacher’s concerns and suggestions. For example, where
there is a disconnect between strategies that student teachers learn in college classes and
those modeled by cooperating teachers, a student teacher may be applying new strategies
without regard to context.
An equal voice in decisions. A suggestion for future practice is to include the
cooperating teacher in any decisions concerning reassignment of a student teacher, not
just to inform the cooperating teacher but to actually give the cooperating teacher an
equal voice. Because cooperating teachers want to be co-deciders of the final student
teacher evaluation, a recommendation for future practice is for universities to require that
113
the pass-fail decision should be a mutual decision of the cooperating teacher and the
university supervisor. If there is a dispute, then a third party, such as a state evaluator
(using the edTPA portfolio), could be included to break the tie. Another suggestion was
for all three of the stakeholders to meet and discuss the areas of concerns with the weak
student teacher.
Opportunity to be part of the design process. For future practice, cooperating
teachers should be asked for their ideas and offered release time to sit on committees to
design the student teaching program. Note: During the interviews cooperating teachers
offered many specific suggestions for design of the student teaching program. Although
these ideas are not a focus of this study, the ideas seem valuable; they appear in
Appendix E.
Recommendation for the Teacher Education Programs
The reality is that it can be extremely difficult to find compatible placements for
student teachers. Universities need to create partnerships with school districts, and the
university supervisor needs to work closely with the cooperating teachers and adminis-
tration to create settings that would enhance the student teaching field experience. As
teacher education programs grapple with the many state and national recommendations, it
is imperative that collaboration occurs within the student teaching program and with
cooperating teachers as well as with the partner schools. Baker and Milner (2006) point
out that the collaborative model needs to take center stage, not simply as a way to prepare
cooperating teachers but as a way to create a new collective ethic.
To enhance the work of cooperating teachers, the university must first look at the
university supervisors. Selection of university supervisors who have the necessary
114
disposition to be a collaborator and colleague is imperative. The university supervisor
must be respectful and supportive of the cooperating teacher. Also, instead of using site-
based supervision, the university should assign supervisors according to their content area
specialty; otherwise, student teachers’ problems with content may go unrecognized.
Next, the university needs to provide training for university supervisors. This training
should address expectations for cooperating teachers, ways to support student teachers
and cooperating teachers, and ways to deal with difficult situations. Also, because
university supervisors play an important role in guiding and supporting cooperating
teachers, their workload needs to be reasonable so they can spend more time working
with cooperating teachers and student teachers. Finally, to make sure that university
supervisors are doing their job, they should be evaluated. This will provide
accountability for the student teaching program.
The university should also provide training for cooperating teachers. In past
research, as well as this study, cooperating teachers have stated that they would benefit
from training. They would like to have a better understanding of the expectations for
them and the student teacher, and they would appreciate guidance in their role as a
mentor. The cooperating teachers in this study understood how crucial their role as a
mentor is in the professional development of the student teacher. Probably new
cooperating teachers need more training than experienced veteran cooperating teachers,
but all cooperating teachers want some type of training. One suggestion from this study
was to employ veteran cooperating teachers as mentors to new cooperating teachers.
Since finances are often an issue with universities, one incentive for veteran cooperating
teachers to mentor would be CPDUs in return for their expertise.
115
To support cooperating teachers and student teachers, universities need to
authorize more visits to the schools by the university supervisor so that the supervisor can
offer support and encouragement to the cooperating support and the student teacher.
Sadler (2006) reported that student teachers were overwhelmed and believed their
education programs had not provided adequate preparation. Most universities have a
content test that student teachers are required to pass before they can student teach;
however, from this study, it appears that the content test is not doing its job and needs to
be changed. In addition, the university needs to make sure that student teachers know
their content before they are given a placement.
The university needs to raise the standards for both cooperating teachers and
student teachers. One way to do this, suggested by a cooperating teacher in the study,
would be to create a program to recognize Master Cooperating Teachers. The Master
Cooperating Teachers would be the first choice of the university to mentor student
teachers, and they would also be the ones asked to mentor new cooperating teachers.
Another suggestion would be to create a grading system for student teachers that has
three divisions: honors, pass, or fail.
Recommendations for Future Research
Since research shows that professional development through workshops or
coursework can strengthen the rapport between the university supervisor and the
cooperating teachers, providing workshops about the mentoring of student teachers could
help to establish a bond between the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor as
well as provide professional development in the form of CPDUs or credit hours toward a
degree, certificate, or licensure. This researcher’s recommendation for further research is
116
to investigate what type and how much preparation cooperating teachers would like.
Another suggestion for further research would be to investigate whether including a
course on the supervision of student teachers within a master’s of education program
would be feasible. Future research could include surveying teacher education programs
that are already providing training for cooperating teachers to examine the effectiveness
of the training. Future research should also be conducted to investigate the types of
mistakes that cooperating teachers make while mentoring student teachers. This research
could be used to help plan workshops on how to mentor a student teacher.
With the Danielson evaluation model in place in many schools, this evaluation
tool could be considered a way to decide who gets to mentor a student teacher. If a
cooperating teacher is at the highest level of the Danielson evaluation, then possibly that
could be one of the criteria for choosing a cooperating teacher. The criteria for the
selection of the cooperating teacher need to be examined. What qualifies a cooperating
teacher to be selected as a highly effective cooperating teacher? This is a topic for further
research.
Although there is plenty of literature on the student teacher’s viewpoint of the
student teaching experience, there is very little literature on the cooperating teacher’s
viewpoint. The qualifications for being allowed to student teach should be reexamined.
Possibly the clarification of what constitutes a prepared student teacher calls for further
research. If we want to keep our cooperating teachers, we need to send them our
brightest and finest student teaching candidates.
117
Conclusion
The student teaching experience is the most prevalent way colleges and
universities link theory of education program with the reality of the classroom
(Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010). The university is a key player in the student
teaching program, and it would be difficult to change many parts of this program without
the initiative and financial support of the university.
The university needs to recognize the impact cooperating teachers have on student
teachers. Soon there could be a shortage of good, qualified cooperating teachers. Some
reasons for this shortage are cooperating teachers’ accountability for their own students’
success, bad experiences with university supervisors and student teachers, retirement of
veteran cooperating teachers, and a lack of incentive for working with a student teacher.
Cooperating teachers are facing many changes to the teaching profession; they do not
need to experience anxiety and tension while mentoring a student teacher. Without the
contributions and services provided by dedicated cooperating teachers for the
professional development of student teachers, the university’s student teaching program,
as we know it, could cease to exist.
All of these suggestions require commitment and financial support from the
university. However, a better student teaching program will result in better teachers and,
in the long run, better-educated citizens.
118
REFERENCES
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Educators. (2010). 21st century
knowledge and skills in educator. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 15, 2012,
from http://www.aacte.org/
Anderson, D. (2007). The role of cooperating teachers’ power in student teaching.
Education, Winter (17), 307-324.
Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student
teaching through co-teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1) 3-14.
Baker, S. R., & Milner, J. O. (2006). Complexities of collaboration: Intensity of
mentors’ responses to paired and single student teachers. Action in Teacher
Education. 28(3), 61-72.
Bartell, C. A. (2005). Cultivating high-quality teaching through induction and mentoring.
Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Baum, A. C., Powers-Costello, B., VanScoy, I., Miller, E., & James, U. ( 2011). We’re
all in this together: Collaborative professional development with student teaching
supervisors. Action in Teacher Education, 33(1), 38-46.
Beck, C., & Kosnick, C. (2000). Associate teachers in pre-service education: Clarifying
and enhancing their role. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(3), 207-224.
Beck, C., & Kosnick, C. (2002). Components of a good practicum placement: Student
teacher perceptions. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 81-98.
Bennett, M. (2002). Cooperating teachers’ perceptions of a collaborative, standards-
based secondary education program. Action in Teacher Education, 24(3), 26-36.
Briers, G. E., & Edwards, M. C. (2001). Cooperating teachers’ perceptions of important
elements of the student teaching experience: A focus group approach with a
quantitative follow-up. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(3), 30-41.
Brink, B., Grisham, D., Laguardia, A., Granby, C., & Peck, C. (2001). Who needs student
teaching? Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), 33-45.
Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates.
Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 37-60.
119
Caires, S., & Almedida, L. S. (2007). Positive aspects of the teacher training supervision:
The student teachers’ perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
22(4), 515-528.
Carroll, D. (2012). Examining the development of dispositions for ambitious teaching:
One teacher candidate’s journey. The New Educator, 8(1), 38-64.
Caruso, J. J. (1998). What cooperating teacher case studies reveal about their phases of
development as supervisors of student teachers. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 21(1), 119-132.
Chesley, G. M., & Jordan, J. (2012). What’s missing from teacher prep? Educational
Leadership, 69(8), DOI 00131784.
Clarke, A. (2001). Characteristics of co-operating teachers. Canadian Journal of
Education, 26(2), 237-256.
Cole, A. L. (2000). Case studies of reform in Canadian preservice teacher education.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40, 192–195.
Creswell, J. W., (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J. W., (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods.
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (2nd ed). Thousands Oak, CA: Sage Publications.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (1999). Recruiting, preparing, and retaining qualified
teachers to educate all of America’s children in the 21st century. The Journal of
Negro Education, 68(3), 254-279.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.), (2005). Preparing teachers for a
changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dooley, C. M., Dangel, J. R., & Farran, L. K. (2011). Current issues in teacher
education: 2006-2009. Action in Teacher Education, 33(3), 298-313.
120
Duquette, C. (1994). The role of the cooperating teacher in a school-based teacher
education program: Benefits and concerns. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10(3),
345-353.
Fantozzi, V. B. (2012). Making meaning in student teaching. Action in Teacher
Education, 34(2), 146-158.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. (1993). Mentoring in context: A comparison of two
U.S. programs for beginning teachers. International Journal of Educational
Research, 19(8), 699-718.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Teacher mentoring: A critical review. Eric Digest ED
397060
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to
strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Freking, T. A. (2006). Missing voices: Beginning teachers’ experiences and perspectives
on the mentoring relationship (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Illinois State
University, Normal, Il.
Ganesh, B., & Matteson, S. M. (2010). The benefits of reteaching lessons in preservice
methods classes. Action in Teacher Education, 32(4), 52-60.
Gardiner, W. (2009). Rudderless as mentors: The challenge of teachers as mentors.
Action in Teacher Education, 30(4). 56-66.
Glickman, G., & Bey, T. (1990). Supervision. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teacher education (pp. 549-566). New York: Macmillan.
Goodfellow, J. (2000). Knowing from inside: Reflective conversations with and through
narratives of one cooperating teacher. Reflective Practice, 1(1), 25-42.
Grove, K., Strudler, N., & Odell, S. (2004). Mentoring toward technology use:
Cooperating teacher practice in supporting student teachers. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education, 37(1), 85-109.
Hamiliton, J. (2010). Cooperating teachers: An investigation of their needs and training
as mentors and supervisors of student teachers. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). The University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Hastings, W. (2004). Emotions and the practicum: The cooperating teachers’
perspective. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 10(2), 135-148.
121
He, B. Y., & Levin, B. B. (2008). Match or mismatch? How congruent are the beliefs of
teacher candidates, cooperating teachers, and university-based teacher educators?
Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(4), 37-55.
Henry, M. A., & Weber, A. (2010). Supervising student teachers: The profound way.
(7th ed). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Horton, L., & Harvey, K. (1979). Preparing cooperating teachers: The role of the
university supervisor. Peabody Journal of Education, October, 56-60.
Johnson, I.L., (2011). Teacher to mentor: Become a successful cooperating teacher.
Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sports Educators. 24 (3), 14-17.
Kasperbauer, H. J., & Roberts, T. G. (2007). Changes in student teacher perceptions of
the student teacher-cooperating teacher relationship throughout the student
teaching semester. Journal of Agriculture Education, 48(1), 31-41.
Kent, S. I. (2001). Supervision of student teachers: Practices of cooperating teachers
prepared in a clinical supervision course. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,
16(3), 228-244.
Killian, J. E., & Wilkins, E. A. (2009). Characteristics of highly effective cooperating
teachers: A study of their backgrounds and preparation. Action in Teacher
Education, 30(4). 67-83.
Koeppen, K. E., & Davison-Jenkins J. (2007). Teacher dispositions: Envisioning their
role in education. New York: R & L Education.
Koerner, M. E. (1992). The cooperating teacher: An ambivalent participant in student
teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 46-56.
Koerner, M., Rust, F. O., & Baumgartner, F. (2002). Exploring roles in student teaching
placements. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 36-58.
Koster, B., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Wubbels, Th. (1998). Is there anything left for us?
Functions of cooperating teachers and teacher educators. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 21(1), 75-89
Knowles J. G., & Cole, A. L. (1995). University supervisors and pre-service teachers:
Clarifying roles and negotiating relationships. The Teacher Educator, 30(3), 44-
56.
Kuechle, J., Holzhauer, M., Lin, R., Brulle, A., & Morrison, S. (2010). Teaching Ms.
Kerbin: A unique approach to student teacher reflections and their use with
preservice candidates. Action in Teacher Education, 32(3) 25-39.
122
LaBoskey, V. K., & Richert, A. E. (2002). Identifying good student teaching placements:
A pragmatic perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2) 7-34.
Landt, S. M. (2004). Professional development of middle and secondary level educators
in the role of cooperating teacher. Action in Teacher Education, 26(1) 74-84.
McFadden C., & Sheerer, M. (2006). A comparative study of the perceptions of teacher
preparation faculty and school superintendents regarding the criticisms made
against teacher preparation programs. Action in Teacher Education, 28(1). 51-72.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moustakos, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2001). Standards for
professional development schools. Washington, DC: Retrieved July 15, 2009,
from http://www.ncate.org/
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Standards for field
experiences and clinical practices. Washington, DC: Retrieved February 24,
2010, from http://www.ncate.org/
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.
In J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study
Committee. Washington, DC: Center for Education, National Academy Press.
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what
can be done?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301-314.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Phelps, P. H., & Benson, T. R. (2012). Teachers with a passion for the profession.
Action in Teacher Education, 34(1), 65-76.
Post, D. M. (2007). The cooperating teacher I’s: Effective mid-lesson responses to
student teachers’ critical teaching incidents. Action in Teacher Education, 29(1),
61-70.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S., (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Russell, M. L., & Russell, J. A. (2011). Mentoring relationships: Cooperating teachers’
perspectives on mentoring student interns. The Professional Educator, 35(2).
123
Sadler, T. D. (2006). “I won’t last three weeks:” Preservice science teachers reflect on
their student teaching experiences. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3),
217-241.
Salkind, N. J. (2008). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sanders, M., Dowson, M., & Sinclair, C. (2005). What do associate teachers do
anyway? A comparison of theoretical conceptualizations in the literature and
observed practices in the field. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 706-738.
Sandholtz, J. H., & Wasserman, K. (2001). Student teacher and cooperating teachers:
Contrasting experiences in teacher preparation programs. Action in Teacher
Education, 23(3), 54-65.
Sawchuk, S. (2012). Student-teacher mentoring targeted. Education Week, 32(13)
DOI 02774232.
Sayeski, K. L., & Paulsen, K. J. (2012). Student teacher evaluations of cooperating
teachers as indices of effective mentoring. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2),
117-130.
Schultz, R. (2005). The practicum: More than practice. Canadian Journal of Education,
28(1/2), 147-167.
Sherrill, J. A. (1999). Redefining teacher quality. Theory into practice, 38(1), 56-61
Shroyer, G., Yahnke, S., Bennett, A., & Dunn, C. (2007), Simultaneous renewal through
professional development school partnerships. The Journal of Educational
Research, 100(4), 211-223.
Sinclair, C., Munns, G., & Woodward, H. (2005). Get real: Making problematic the
pathway into the teaching profession. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
33 (2), 209-222.
Sinclair, C., Dowson. M., & Thistleton-Martin J. (2006). Motivations and profiles of
cooperating teachers: Who volunteers and why? Teaching and Teacher
Education, 22, 263-279.
Smith, E. R. (2007). Negotiating power and pedagogy in student teaching: Expanding
and shifting roles in expert-novice discourse. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15(1), 87-
106.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodologies: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
124
Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories
and models. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Urdan, T. C. (2005). Statistics in plain English (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics & methodology: A nontechnical guide for
the social sciences (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weasmer, J., & Woods, A. M. (2003). The role of the host teacher in the student
teaching experience. The Clearing House, 76(4), 174-177.
Welsh, R. G., & Devlin, P. A. (2006). Developing preservice teachers’ reflection:
Examining the use of video. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 53-61.
Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Needham Heights, MA:
Pearson Education Company.
Ziechner, K. M., & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 23-48.
Ziechner, K. M. (1992). Rethinking the practicum in the professional development
school. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 296-307.
125
APPENDIX A
SURVEY
126
SURVEY
Section 1. Your Background and Preparation
Instructions: Please select only one choice response.
1. Gender
Male Female
2. Grade Level
Middle School High School Middle and High School
3. The highest degree I presently hold is:
Bachelor’s Master’s Specialist Doctorate
4. The number of years I have been a certified classroom teacher is:
less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-15 years 16+ years
5. During my years as a professional classroom teacher, I have worked with approximately how
many student teachers?
1-2 3-5 6 or more
6. I have had the following preparation for work with student teachers (please select all that apply):
University Course Orientation Session
Handbook Workshop
TPAC training
Other______________________________________
Section 2. Experience with the Student Teaching Process
Instructions: Please indicate the extent to which you value each of the following as a component of
the student teaching process. Please select only one choice response.
Extremely
Valuable
Somewhat
Valuable
Not
Valuable
Somewhat
Detrimental
Extremely
Detrimental
7. Frequent supervisor visits to my
classroom to meet or observe the
student teacher.
8. Information about the student
teacher prior to the field experience
9. Detailed guidelines about university
expectations of the student teacher
10. Detailed guidelines about university
expectations of the cooperating
teacher
127
11. Feedback about my supervision of
the student teacher during the field
experience
12. Request for my input on the student
teaching program
Section 3. Your Role as a Cooperating Teacher
Instructions: In your role as a cooperating teacher, how comfortable are you with each of the following.
Please select only one choice response.
Extremely
Comfortable
Somewhat
Comfortable
Neutral Somewhat
Uncomfortable
Extremely
Uncomfortable
13. Student teacher trying
strategies that I myself do not
use
14. Evaluating my student teacher
15. Being evaluated in my role as
cooperating teacher by the
university supervisor
16. Reassignment of a student
teacher who is having
difficulty in their placement
Section 4. Your Perspective on the Student Teaching Experience
Instructions: Please select only one choice response.
17. How often do you prefer the university supervisor to observe in your classroom?
weekly every two weeks monthly less than once a month
18. How often would you prefer the university supervisor to check in with you about your student
teacher?
weekly every two weeks monthly less than once a month
19. Do you see the university supervisor as an authority figure or as a colleague?
authority figure colleague other _____________________________
20. Would you like to have input on the design of the student teaching field experience?
yes no maybe
128
21. Who should make the final determination on whether the student teacher should pass student
teaching? Please select all that apply.
cooperating teacher
university supervisor
trained state evaluator who reviews a student teacher’s collection of materials
(videos, lesson plans, etc.) developed during student teaching
Please write your response to each question below. If you need additional space, just attach note
paper .
22. What challenges do cooperating teachers face before or during the field experience?
23. Overall, what could the university supervisor do to enhance the cooperating teacher’s
experience?
Thank you for your participation!
129
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
130
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What is your level of education?
2. How long have you been working with teacher candidates and how many
student teachers have you mentored?
3. What type of preparation have you had for working with student teachers and
how well did you feel it prepared you for the role of a cooperating teacher?
4. What requirements or preparation should cooperating teachers have to mentor
teacher candidates?
5. What do you perceive as the important roles that cooperating teachers need to
demonstrate to be considered good mentors of teacher candidates?
6. What challenges or difficult situations have you faced before or during the
student teaching field experience and how were you supported by your
university supervisor to meet those challenges?
7. What are your thoughts about allowing the student teacher to use new
strategies that you have not used in your classroom?
8. Who should ultimately make the determination whether the student teacher
successfully completes the student teaching experience and why?
9. Would you like to receive feedback on your work with teacher candidates?
Why or why not?
10. What could the university supervisor do to help you while you mentor the
teacher candidate?
11. Would you like to have input on the design of the student teaching field
experience?
If so, how would you design or change the student teaching experience?
131
APPENDIX C
LETTERS
132
INFORMED CONSENT LETTER
Dear _______________ :
I am a graduate student at Illinois State University. I am conducting a research study
called the “Cooperating Teacher Research Study” to identify the concerns of cooperating
teachers who provide guidance and support for teacher candidates during student
teaching. I am asking that you complete a written survey taking approximately 15-20
minutes; afterward, I may contact you to discuss your responses for perhaps half an hour.
(I would audiotape our conversation.) By participating, you may help improve the student
teaching experience for cooperating teachers.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to answer any
questions you do not wish to answer. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from
the study at any time, there will be no loss of benefits or penalty of any kind. The
information provided will not be used in any way to impact assessment of your
performance in any future courses.
I will take all precautions to maintain your confidentiality. All responses will be kept
under lock and key. Findings will be reported mainly in the aggregate; pseudonyms will
be used to report any individual responses in the transcripts and in the final report. The
results of the research study may be published, but your name will not be used.
Although, it is not my intent to seek emotionally distressing responses, it is possible that
some questions may involve emotionally sensitive material. If so, I will give you names
and contact information of individuals you can talk to.
If you have any questions concerning the research study, please feel free to contact me at
217-254-6707(cell) or call my advisor Dr. Nancy Latham at 309-438-5451. If you have
any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you
have been placed at risk, you can contact the Research Ethics & Compliance Office at
Illinois State University at (309) 438-2529.
If you are willing to participate in the study as described above, please respond to this
email with the statement “I consent to participate in Dawn Paulson’s “Cooperating
Teacher Research Study.”
Sincerely,
Dawn Paulson
133
RECRUITMENT LETTER
Dear _________________________,
Through Eastern Illinois University, I have been working in the schools with teacher
candidates during both student teaching and practicum. Cooperating teachers have given
me valuable ideas about their views on these experiences. For my doctoral research at
Illinois State University, I would like to further explore the cooperating teachers’
perspectives, specifically their concerns and their beliefs about what factors contribute to
a successful field experience.
I hope you can help me by completing a survey. I estimate that the survey will take 15 to
20 minutes. Your participation is voluntary, and I will maintain your confidentiality at all
times. No real names will appear on any documents reporting the project. If you have
any questions about this survey, feel free to contact me.
If you are willing, please reply to this email by typing “Yes, I will participate.”
Your opinions will be extremely valuable to the success of this research. The insights you
share will be useful in improving the quality of the field experiences for other
cooperating teachers and teacher candidates.
Sincerely,
Dawn Paulson
(217)581-7398
dmpaulson@eiu.edu
134
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
135
Study: Perceptions of Cooperating Teachers About the Mentoring of Student Teachers
Time of Interview: Date: Place:
Interviewee:
Description of the Study (Review each of the following topics with the interviewee.)
a) Study Purpose: The purpose of this study is to get a better understanding of the
cooperating teacher’s viewpoint in the development of the teacher candidate and provide
information about what the cooperating teacher feels needs to transpire to develop a
better learning environment for both the cooperating teacher and the student teacher.
This study will examine how prepared the cooperating teacher is to mentor a student
teacher and what type of preparation they think they need. It will look at what helps or
hinders the cooperating teachers while they mentor the student teacher and it will find
what roles cooperating teachers play during the mentoring of the student teacher.
b) Data Collection: During this interview, I will ask you questions about your mentoring
of a student teacher. Please answer as specifically and fully as you can. I will be using a
tape recorder to assure the accuracy of my reported findings, and to be sure to protect
against any unavoidable mechanical failures, I will also take handwritten notes while we
are discussing the questions.
c) Protection of Data Confidentiality: You will be assigned a pseudonym and transcribed
interviews will be kept in secure files with access codes known only to me.
d) Data Accuracy: After I have transcribed the interview, I will email you if there is a
discrepancy in a answer to a question.
e) Interview Length: Approximate length will be 45 minutes to one hour.
"I have your permission to record the interview so I will now tum on the recorders." Turn
on the recorders and begin the interview.
Thank you
136
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEWEES’ SUGGESTIONS FOR THE DESIGN
OF THE STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM
137
INTERVIEWEES’ SUGGESTIONS FOR THE DESIGN
OF THE STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM
1. Better selection of cooperating teachers. Beth suggested rethinking the
requirements of the cooperating teacher. For example, she would like to see more
professional cooperating teachers used for student teaching. Brenda mentioned that it
really bothered her when a cooperating teacher is given a student teacher just because
they are working on their master’s degree. Several interviewees suggested that the
requirements for cooperating teachers needed to be more rigorous. Jillian thought it
would be good idea to develop a tool and allow practicum students, student teachers, and
university supervisors to fill it out so the most highly qualified cooperating teacher is
identified. For the selection of cooperating teachers, interviewees suggested two criteria:
(a) educational level and teaching experience, and (b) ability, including content
knowledge, use of best practices, and overall ability as reflected in good
recommendations.
2. Educational level and teaching experience. When discussing whether the
amount of education a cooperating teacher had should be a requirement to mentor a
student teacher, there were conflicting thoughts. Rikki stated, “I think they need to have
a master’s degree and teach 5 years.” In opposition to Rikki, Jillian stated, “I just think
[cooperating teachers] need to have enough experience, because a master’s degree does
not mean you are more qualified to have a student teacher.” Shannon concurred, stating:
I hate to limit it like that because man sometimes there’s a phenomenal teacher
who just gets it and does it well without higher education. I think it should be part
of the criteria but I don’t feel like it should necessarily be a requirement.
Most cooperating teachers stated that 2 or 3 years of experience should be a requirement
before a cooperating teacher should be allowed to work with a student teacher.
Karla suggested 4 to 5 years as a good guideline because the experience would
help the cooperating teacher be a better mentor. Barbara concurred, stating “I don’t know
what the magic number would be, but I would think that, if we don’t consider them ready
to go until they have tenure, why would we think that they’d be ready to teach somebody
else?” Peter added a different perspective by pointing out that that cooperating teachers
need tenure before they mentor a student teacher, so they would have some protection if
something becomes a major problem.
3. Solid content knowledge—expert in their field of study. When deciding who
should be allowed to work with a student teacher, several interviewees stressed that the
cooperating teachers definitely need to be knowledgeable about the content they are
teaching. Karen stated, that, “[Cooperating teachers] have to know the content well
before we can teach it.” She continued by stating that:
In science [cooperating teachers] have gone from being a specialist to being a
generalist. Sometimes we are asking [cooperating teachers] to teach something
that they don’t have a passion about and they don’t have an understanding of, but
they have a license because we have gone to generalist instead of specialist.
138
Furthermore, there is a disconnect between what the university is teaching and the
common core state standards.
Rikki agreed:
The [cooperating teacher] is the content expert, you know what needs to be
taught, so you can make accommodations in your classroom. That’s good
teaching. Learning to accommodate and learning to modify and learning to make
changes where you are still being true to the curriculum and the expectations is
something that needs to be learned.
It was mentioned several times by the interviewees that if a cooperating teacher is
working with a student teacher they need to be knowledgeable about the RtI process and
IEPs. According to Jillian, “Student teachers should be placed where there are students
with IEPS, so they understand the whole process.”
4. Use of best teaching practices. The cooperating teachers mentioned the
importance of using good teachers as role models for student teachers. Beth stated, “I
think if they’re a good teacher they’re going to be able to isolate what’s important and
good about teaching, deliver constructive criticism, praise and encourage when needed.
You know, I think those are hallmarks of being a good teacher.”
5. Overall ability as reflected in good recommendations. Several interviewees
mentioned that it is very difficult for the university to know who is a really good teacher
and who is not a good teacher. Shannon stated, “I feel like whoever is placing [student
teachers] really should be in that [cooperating] teacher’s classroom prior to the
[placement] in order to make the placement “a good fit
Because the university supervisor may not know the cooperating teacher before
placing a student teacher with them, some interviewees suggested getting
recommendations from the administrator. Barbara mentioned the administrator would
know if the cooperating teacher was tenured, and also if they are struggling right now.
She put it this way, “Maybe they are a great teacher, but they are going through
something. I would place her with you any other day, any other year, but she needs to get
through this year.” Jillian agreed, “A principal at a high school could say definitely this
person is ready for a student teacher even though they don’t have their master’s degree.”
On the other hand, there could be disadvantages to using only administration
recommendations. When Karen was asked how she thought cooperating teachers were
presently being chosen she stated, “Word of mouth, who you know, who’s looking for
doing less work.”
Two cooperating teachers had been part of school districts incorporating the
Charlotte Danielson evaluation tool of their teachers. Beth mentioned, “We’re using the
Charlotte Danielson model, “why not choose teachers to mentor student teachers who are
[deemed] proficient to excellent? I think we should be more selective in who we match
[student teachers] up with, myself included.” She went on to discuss the Charlotte
Danielson model. “This is a very strong rubric. I’m finding it incredibly challenging and
I think if I come out the other side proficient or above I’ve earned the chance to train
someone who’s coming to the program.” Barbara concurred, stating, “Why would you
not [use the Danielson model]?”
139
6. Partnership arrangements. Brenda commented on the benefits of setting up a
partnership with the university and then the practicum student could go from practicum
with the cooperating teacher straight to student teaching with the same cooperating
teacher. She explained that she had a practicum student who the next semester was
placed with her to student teach. “The [student teacher] knew my procedures and
protocols, so she folded really well into what I was already doing. There was a sense of
trust already established and a sense of communication.” Brenda explained that the
practicum connection made [student teaching] more
comfortable.
Brenda added:
Many student teachers are from the Chicago area, and they often want to go
home. In order for this work, student teachers would be required to do their
student teaching in the partnership school. If [the student teachers] are going to
[attend a university here] they need to make that commitment to finish their
degree [at the partnership school.]
On the other hand, Beth mentioned that she would like to see a variety of
experiences during student teaching, “because when you work with one teacher it is a
singular thing; it’s what that teacher coaches, it’s what that teacher advises.” She went
on to say that she didn’t like it that her student teachers have only seen her. She said
hitting the ground running and having a good rapport is all positive but it isn’t really what
the goal of the student teaching program is. Given the goals, I think it’s much more
purposeful if the student teachers could have three-four placements throughout their
educational experience. “I think multiple placements are important.” Beth also
suggested providing an opportunity for student teachers to observe the other teachers
during the student teaching experience. She said, “It inspires you!”
7. Changes in type and length of placement. Shannon commented that she finds
it more difficult to work with a student teacher in the fall, when she is in the process of
setting up her classes and getting to know her students. Personally, she would rather
have a student teacher in the spring, but she added that she thinks a student teacher gets a
more realistic perspective of teaching when they start the year with the students in the
fall.
Karla suggested the idea of requiring year-long student teaching. She said one
semester is too short. “Once the [student teacher] gets the hang of it ‘Oh by the way,
we’re done!’” Karla also thinks they need to be more involved with parents. Karla
commented, “Dealing with parents I think that’s the hardest thing for [student teachers.]”
She concluded by saying the student teacher also needs time to learn about the
community, issues with poverty and developing collaborative relationships with faculty.
Brad also mentioned the possibility of creating a full year of student teaching:
I think it was Wisconsin several years ago required a full year of student teaching,
and it was an internship more than student teaching because [the student teacher]
started the year and ended the year and it was [the cooperating teachers]
classroom. There wasn’t another cooperating teacher in [the classroom] and in
some ways I think that would be better because the safety net is out.
Brad added,
140
In the spring [placements] the [student teacher] comes in and the classroom
environment has already been established, and [the student teacher] didn’t have a
hand in it, which is probably one of the most important skills [student teachers]
need to learn. If the student teacher had their own room from the beginning, they
would have a lot more authority to make the [necessary] decisions. Also, the
grading system is set up in the fall.
Wanda would like to see a year of student teaching, but she would like it to be
divided up into two parts. The first semester the student teacher would observe,
participate in planning lessons with the cooperating teacher and discuss pertinent issues
about lessons and students. Then the second semester the student teacher would take over
the classroom from the beginning of the semester. By the time the student teacher is
ready to take over the class, he/she has been immersed in the classroom and has gotten to
know the students and school faculty.
LeAnn is fine with one semester because she thinks it is a “big commitment” to
student teach for one year. On the other hand, she thinks if student teaching lasted a year,
student teachers with a rural background could observe an inner-city school and vice
versa because “student teachers never know where they are going to end up.” She also
felt that this allows student teachers an opportunity to experience school “outside their
comfort zone.” LeAnn continued, “I think most [student teachers] probably think they’re
going to [teach] in a school like [the student teacher attended.]” She thinks it would be a
good idea to allow student teachers a choice of a one-semester placement or a one-year
placement. Giving a choice would help student teachers who could not afford two
semesters. Beth commented, “There’s no way [student teachers] could afford it. The
semester…was brutal.”
8. Better assessment of student teachers. Interviewees were dismayed by the
idea of a portfolio assessment of the student teacher’s ability. LeAnn would like to see
the elimination of the portfolio assessment. She stated, “I’ve heard what the [authorities]
are going to have the [student teachers] do and it is almost [like] doing a national board
portfolio during their first teaching experience. It’s a crazy expectation.” Karen added,
“I’m concerned about the amount of time that [student teachers] are going to spend on the
edTPA, especially the written part. . . and the additional stress it’s going to put on [ the
student teachers.]” Not only is the portfolio cumbersome, it is not as good a judge as the
cooperating teacher. According to interviewees’ responses, the cooperating teacher is
better able to assess student teachers’ capabilities to teach.
Beth mentioned the benefit of evaluating the student teacher using the assessment
tool that her school district is currently using for its teacher, The Danielson Model.
However, she added, if it’s necessary to have one assessment tool for all districts it would
be “huge to align [the rubric] more closely with what [the student teachers] are going to
experience.”
9. Addition of auxiliary duties for student teachers. Beth discussed the
importance of immersing the student teachers into the educational process. She said, “I
think the student teacher gets a watered down version of the teaching experience. [The
auxiliary things] teachers deal with actually make the 54-minute classroom time so much
141
more difficult. Attending IEP meetings and [handling] the parents who call because their
kid doesn’t play enough on your freshman softball team are the hardest to navigate.”
Brad agreed stating, “Design the student teaching program so the student teachers
have to take care of parents, the [student teachers need] to take care of all the hard stuff.”
10. Calendar of requirements and due dates. A few cooperating teachers
mentioned that each cooperating teacher seemed to handle student teaching in their own
way and they would like to see more structure in the student teaching experience. For
example,
By week two the student [teacher] should be able to do…. By week three the
student [teacher] or by week six they should be taking all day. Then [the
cooperating teacher’s] role at this point would be supplemental grading or
whatever [is designated for] the [cooperating teacher] to do.
Shannon would also like to see a timeline and she added, “I would like clarity as
to what [is supposed to be accomplished] during that last week or two. I have had
different [university supervisors] give me different answers.”
11. More content knowledge for student teacher. A major concern of the
interviewees was the placement of student teachers who appeared lacking in content
knowledge. One solution presented was to only place student teachers in their area of
concentration within the major; for example, not asking a student teacher with a
concentration in biology to teach physics. (Another possible solution would be a more
rigorous content test as a basis for selection of student teachers.)
Another way for the student teacher to gain more content knowledge is to have
the university supervisor with knowledge of that specific content area work with the
student teacher. Karla suggested this specific change in the design of the student
teaching program.
I think it is a good idea to have a [university] supervisor who knows the content.
The [university supervisor] would know exactly what the [student teacher] was
doing in the class. Also, the [student teacher] would learn from the [university
supervisor] who is an expert in the [content] area.
According to Brad, in addition to being a support for the student teacher, the university
supervisor would be able to assess the student teacher more accurately.
12. Training of cooperating teachers. All the interviewees suggested some type
of training for cooperating teachers who are working with student teachers, especially
concerning the various roles they play as they mentor student teachers. Beth mentioned
that student teachers, “pass back a lot of papers and they make a lot of seating charts
[mostly non-teaching duties] and it’s still almost like a practicum. I …see a lot of
[cooperating] teachers struggling to let go, and I think a training is needed.” In addition,
Emily would like to receive evaluation materials, and she would like to have training in
how to use them. Jillian suggested the need for more training on the importance of
professionalism with the student teacher and the cooperating teacher. Another suggested
“training before the cooperating teacher takes on a student teacher and reflections after
the semester [to discuss] recommendations for improvement.”
142
Jillian suggested, training of cooperating teachers could be a criterion for
selection, or it could be a requirement that must be completed before the beginning of the
student teaching semester begins, depending on the length and format of the training.
I would say the first time [a cooperating teacher has a student teacher] they would
need to maybe go to some type of class or workshop or something where these
things are gone over, these expectations, what [cooperating teachers] need to do
with their student teacher.
13. Format of university-sponsored training. The interviewees suggested
several different possible formats: a college course, an online webinar, a 2-3 day
workshop and a one day training. Shannon stated, “Anyone who wants to do [student
teaching] well is going to want to be trained.” Wanda agreed stating, “I think it would be
nice to have a course offered. If you want a student teacher, then you take this course.”
14. Release time. Brad added that he would like to see release time for the
cooperating teachers, so they would have time to meet with the student teacher and
debrief. Also, he thinks there needs to be time set aside for the student teacher to meet
with other teachers who teach the same content.
In summary, all of the interviewees wanted a voice in program design and had
many suggestions for improvement of the student teaching program, including more
information about the student teaching experience, changes in format of placement and
increase in its length, partnership arrangements, addition of auxiliary duties for student
teachers, better assessment of student teachers, better selection of cooperating teachers,
more consistency in the student teaching program, and more content knowledge as a
prerequisite for student teaching.
15. Degree in content area. It was suggested by several interviewees that
teacher candidates should be required to get a degree in their content area first then get a
teaching license.